Mega-Thread: 2020 United States General Election

[Benggaul]

Remember when the election was called and the mods said they would soon close the thread because discussion would be winding down?

Ah, how naive we were in November 2020.

To be fair, a lot of the things being discussed here could be done in different threads (and some are, including the riot). Past January 6th there's not much else to say about the General election itself. It's been counted, certified and Biden will be sworn in on the 20th.

[breadisfunny]

So your answer is no you are unable to quantify your bs position. Thanks for playing.

- - - Updated - - -



Why do we spend so much time talking about fracking?

because fracking is destructive to the enviroment and people's homes.

[cubby]

They are rounding up people by the droves now, which is excellent. The charges are pretty blasé though - nothing regarding any of the deaths or charges related. It's possible they are waiting on those more severe charges, which makes sense - no need to rush them once the terrorists have been arrested.

- - - Updated - - -

because fracking is destructive to the enviroment and people's homes.

This isn't the right fracking thread.

[downnola]

because fracking is destructive to the enviroment and people's homes.

I want the freedom to have flammable water faucets, tyvm.

[Zaktar]

Three California counties ranked in the top 10 on Trump side - Los Angeles County (#1), Orange County (#2), and, to my eternal shame, San Diego County (#7).

Why am I surprised? I shouldn't be surprised =(

[Kathranis]

To be fair, a lot of the things being discussed here could be done in different threads (and some are, including the riot). Past January 6th there's not much else to say about the General election itself. It's been counted, certified and Biden will be sworn in on the 20th.

Eh, false conspiratorial claims about the election results are still very much at the center of the siege and Trump's subsequent deplatforming and impeachment. It'll remain part of the public discourse through inauguration, and will likely continue being a fringe right wing talking point for the foreseeable future.

[Crissi]

way to miss my point and focus on the nitty gritty, Themius. My overall point was states have plenty of local concerns that other states wont give a shit about, and as such the smaller states could easy be railroaded by the larger ones. Made even worse when inevitable the GoP will have control of both parts of Congress again.

[Benggaul]

Eh, false conspiratorial claims about the election results are still very much at the center of the siege and Trump's subsequent deplatforming and impeachment. It'll remain part of the public discourse through inauguration, and will likely continue being a fringe right wing talking point for the foreseeable future.

I did say "a lot of", not "all".

Although the deplatforming and impeachment are both better suited for the Trump thread, in my opinion.

[Edge-]

Because you then have land meaning more than people.

States*

Not land. The states are entities themselves and have governments and vested interests for their people. If land meant more than people, than CA would still have more influence than RI or New Jersey or Kentucky.

[PhaelixWW]

The problem is when you have a McConnell. I feel like there should be a mandatory nature to bringing any bills passed in either the senate or house to the floor for a vote. When the Senate can block everything the house does simply through inaction there’s a serious issue. Because you then have land meaning more than people.

Leaving aside the fact that it's states, not land, how can you figure that states would "mean more than people"?

I think you mean "as much as", since the House can block legislature just as easily as the Senate can.

This is also why the presidency should be determined by the people and not a combination of people/states, because that would slide the overall parity in the favor of the people's representation while still allowing the states their measure.

[Themius]

because fracking is destructive to the enviroment and people's homes.

It is and most want an end to it yet... there’s a certain SWING state that had an industry in fracking that stunts everyone from making meaningful progress on the issue

[Edge-]

It is and most want an end to it yet... there’s a certain SWING state that had an industry in fracking that stunts everyone from making meaningful progress on the issue

You don't even need legislation to do that, it's becoming increasingly unprofitable and a PR disaster for these companies.

Just like what happened in Alaska - they opened up leases for drilling/exploration rights in the arctic and...the state of Alaska were pretty much the only bidders. Why? Because drilling for oil up there is extremely expensive. Because it's a gamble, and with the cost of oil dropping it has little chance of paying off. Also, because of huge social/PR consequences for any company that decides to go up there and cover the wildlife in sludge.

Sometimes, the market handles everything all on its own.

[Themius]

You don't even need legislation to do that, it's becoming increasingly unprofitable and a PR disaster for these companies.

Just like what happened in Alaska - they opened up leases for drilling/exploration rights in the arctic and...the state of Alaska were pretty much the only bidders. Why? Because drilling for oil up there is extremely expensive. Because it's a gamble, and with the cost of oil dropping it has little chance of paying off. Also, because of huge social/PR consequences for any company that decides to go up there and cover the wildlife in sludge.

Sometimes, the market handles everything all on its own.

The market is specifically made to exploit people to the maximum extent. To bend the populace just to the breaking point. The market is the last thing we should pin hopes on.

[Edge-]

The market is specifically made to exploit people to the maximum extent. To bend the populace just to the breaking point. The market is the last thing we should pin hopes on.

Never said we should, but sometimes it works "as intended" like it did in Alaska. Mind you, that's not just the "invisible hand", but also the social aspect of the market and people holding companies accountable for their actions. Which is good.

And to remind you, Republicans frequently control majorities in the House, so your argument would be to hand of de-facto total Legislative power to a single party and pray that the same party doesn't occupy the White House as there are no further checks. The House/Senate act as checks on each other, even if they can be abused like we've seen with McConnell. Pelosi, on the other hand gets to do the same if she wants. It doesn't matter what McConnell gets through the Senate, if Pelosi and the House says "nope", the bill goes nowhere.

[PhaelixWW]

The market is specifically made to exploit people to the maximum extent. To bend the populace just to the breaking point. The market is the last thing we should pin hopes on.

This is just a catastrophically bad read of the situation.

[Endus]

Having a single proportional representative house is a ridiculous opinion? What problems would dissolving the senate create?

A single house means the government is way "swingier" than even the current government is. That's not really a positive. I'm a strong believer in a bicameral, or even tricameral, system. With significantly different selection processes and/or terms in office for each House.

Take Canada as an example. We've got the House of Commons, which is where all the elected members of Parliament sit, effectively similar to the US House of Representatives. But then we have our Senate. It's regionally distributed; 24 each to various regions plus 9 others for the remaining smaller bits. But it isn't elected. They're appointed, by the Governor General, based on recommendations by the PM. And they serve as long as they want, or until they hit the mandatory retirement age of 75. In practice, it's generally an end-of-career reward type thing for politicians; it's a cushy job but the Canadian Senate has a lot less power than the US Senate, and is decidedly a step down in power and influence than the House of Commons. While bills have to pass both houses to pass into law, it's basically just the House of Commons that gets to write bills, so the Senate is meant more as a sober second thought without as much partisanship influencing anything (since Senators may have been chosen from within a party, but no longer run for office, they're free to vote on their conscience rather than needing party support).

It's an imperfect system, but better than the American. I'd prefer the Senate be made into essentially a reward for non-politicians who've done good works in Canada; get more diverse voices into the process. Senate reform's an actively-discussed topic, here, though.

The advantage of a bicameral system is that members of each House have different selection processes and thus are less likely to respond the same way to changes in society; that reduces partisanship (in theory). The American system leaves so little distinction between the two this doesn't work out, however.

The market is specifically made to exploit people to the maximum extent. To bend the populace just to the breaking point. The market is the last thing we should pin hopes on.

Capitalist markets.

Markets, in general, are just distribution systems. Their primary goals as systems are derived from their economic system; capitalism seeks to exploit for the profit of capitalists, a socialist market system seeks to balance benefits between workers and consumers.

[Crissi]

The problem is when you have a McConnell. I feel like there should be a mandatory nature to bringing any bills passed in either the senate or house to the floor for a vote. When the Senate can block everything the house does simply through inaction there’s a serious issue. Because you then have land meaning more than people.

yeah, a McConnell being able to block everything he doesnt like is extremely problematic. There needs to be mechanisms to bypass that. Should be something like "If 40 senators object top inaaction, the Senate has to take action." Empower the minority, even if the result is that the bill is voted down.

[wunksta]

yeah, a McConnell being able to block everything he doesnt like is extremely problematic. There needs to be mechanisms to bypass that. Should be something like "If 40 senators object top inaaction, the Senate has to take action." Empower the minority, even if the result is that the bill is voted down.

If a bill passes the House, the Senate should be forced to vote on it. Doesn't make sense that one person can block it.

[Edge-]

If a bill passes the House, the Senate should be forced to vote on it. Doesn't make sense that one person can block it.

Then the reverse would be true too, if the Senate passes a bill it goes to the House to vote.

In theory, I'm actually pretty down with this. It forces them both to do their jobs and forces them to actually deal with each other rather than ignore each other.

But what immediately jumps to mind is one party using that to functionally overwhelm the party in the other chamber with garbage legislation. I hate it, because Republicans have been so corrupt and dishonest that my first thought is, "How easily can this be abused/exploited to absolutely fuck everything over and destroy an attempt at good-faith governance?"

[PhaelixWW]

But what immediately jumps to mind is one party using that to functionally overwhelm the party in the other chamber with garbage legislation. I hate it, because Republicans have been so corrupt and dishonest that my first thought is, "How easily can this be abused/exploited to absolutely fuck everything over and destroy an attempt at good-faith governance?"

Don't be ashamed by that thought. As a coder and former game tester, those are honestly the first thoughts that should always take place when designing either a new system or a change to an existing system.