Donald Trump's lies

He called Kamala Harris a lunatic which is strange language to describe your political opponent.

I love this silver lining! " I'm better looking than my opponent"
I wonder if our new PM thinks that he won the election because he was more handsome than the previous incumbent.
Maybe it's time for Hugh Grant to apply for the post?

I never fail to be surprised and amused by Trump accusing Kamala of being a radical far left politician. Fact is there is no far left radical or otherwise in the US, it just doesn’t exist. The Republicans are right wing and the Democrats are less so.

Remember Elon Musks 2 hour X chat with Trump?

CNN fact checked in detail, its actually quite shocking the level of "False Truths"

edition.cnn.com/2024/08/13/politics/fact-check-trump-musk-20-false-claims/index.html

Trump and Musk, there are two men who should - as my old mum would say - find something better to do.

I really wish there was something we can do about Musk and Twitter as in when he said there would be civil war etc. Stirring it.

There’s barely a left never mind a radical far left party in America.
As Babs says, Republicans are right wing and Democrats just ever so slightly to the left of right. It’s tight.

Nevertheless, Harris is now inspiring people who’ve not been politically active before -

edition.cnn.com/2024/08/17/politics/indian-americans-kamala-harris-election-cec/index.html?iid=cnn_buildContentRecirc_end_recirc

“It became impossible not to engage,”shetold CNN. “The choice is not about Democrats or Republicans. The choice is between democracy and losing it.”

I think there are undoubtedly lefties in the USA but they are able be realistic when it comes to the elections.

MayBee70

Norah

I think RFKjr is the wild card that will swing democrat votes away, as happened with Stein in 2016 and Perot in 1992.

I thought he’d lost any popularity he might have had because of the dead baby bear revelation?

Of course he lost normal people's votes.

He could still swing votes. Spoilers.

Perhaps the only ones who'd have voted for him were RFKsr followers anyway. Strangely, RFK still has a following all these years on.

However, by their odd voting system, total popular vote doesn't matter (Hillary Clinton and Al Gore being examples we can all remember). Large enough numbers of votes to "third party" candidates, in certain states, depending on how that state counts electors - pulls electors from whomever, Dems or Reps.

I'm inarticulate. Perhaps this will help. (Clinton-Trump in 2016)

www.politico.com/news/2020/06/20/democrats-shrug-off-potential-green-party-spoiler-in-2020-329170

www.history.com/news/third-party-candidates-election-influence-facts

The problem is that, like the UK, the USA uses what in effect is a First Past The Post system to elect a President.

This is blatantly undemocratic as it can lead to the candidate with a minority of votes becoming President, as happened in 2016 when Hillary Clinton gained 3 million more votes than Donald Trump but Trump was elected.

True democracies use proportional representation, resulting in a government elected by a majority, not a minority of voters.

The Americans do _not- use a first pass the post system. if they had Hilary Clinton would have become president in 2016 as she got more votes that Trump.

They have elections at state level that decide how many delegates they send to an electoral college and who they are to support. the number of electoral delegates is matched to the number of Congressmen in each state

The electoral delegates meet and vote for the successful candidate in their state.

Although this is theoretically a first past the post system, Congess man numbers ate not always proprtional to population, some states choose elctors on a proportionate system and other minor problems

In 2016 Hilary Clinton got 65, 845,000 votes and Trump got 62,980,000. In othr words Trump got nearly 3million votes less than his rival, but more electoral votes because of the arcane way electors are elected.

varian

The problem is that, like the UK, the USA uses what in effect is a First Past The Post system to elect a President.

This is blatantly undemocratic as it can lead to the candidate with a minority of votes becoming President, as happened in 2016 when Hillary Clinton gained 3 million more votes than Donald Trump but Trump was elected.

True democracies use proportional representation, resulting in a government elected by a majority, not a minority of voters.

No.

They use electors, by state population. Some states having rather large populations and some small. However, each state has a method to select electors - therein comes "third party" candidates.

Hillary Clinton had the popular vote, but not electors. Same with Al Gore - America wouldn't have had Bush2 WMD wars, had Gore won.

Full circle to the electoral process problems.

Each state uses FPTP so that the winner takes all the electors from that state in just the same way as out .MPs, whether they won by a huge majority or just one vote, take the seat. Under FPTP all votes for losing candidates are "lost".

Hence the winning party may have fewer votes than another party, just as the winning presidential candidate may have fewer votes than his opponent.

It a lot mor complex than the system in the UK. This is a good explanation from The Conversation, but it takes some getting your head around.
theconversation.com/whose-votes-count-the-least-in-the-electoral-college-74280

More!

Casdon

It a lot mor complex than the system in the UK. This is a good explanation from The Conversation, but it takes some getting your head around.
theconversation.com/whose-votes-count-the-least-in-the-electoral-college-74280

Brilliant. Well explains the low population with higher electors/person apart from votes cast and popular vote.

I’m afraid it’s not a good explanation of the impacts. It’s neat, as a mathematical model, but ignores the structural inequalities of the EC. It glosses over, for example, the distorted impact of having electors per senator (because the spread of senators is a scandal in itself: eg, the combined population of 15 states – Alaska, Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Kentucky and South Carolina – is around 38 million people. These citizens are represented in the US Senate by 30 senators, even though their combined population is less than that of California which has just two senators.

Neither does the article even touch on the original three-fifths rule, which still impacts heavily by boosting the white vote, nor on how it gives disproportionate influence to particular states.

There is a good explanation of the

Siope

I’m afraid it’s not a good explanation of the impacts. It’s neat, as a mathematical model, but ignores the structural inequalities of the EC. It glosses over, for example, the distorted impact of having electors per senator (because the spread of senators is a scandal in itself: eg, the combined population of 15 states – Alaska, Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Kentucky and South Carolina – is around 38 million people. These citizens are represented in the US Senate by 30 senators, even though their combined population is less than that of California which has just two senators.

Neither does the article even touch on the original three-fifths rule, which still impacts heavily by boosting the white vote, nor on how it gives disproportionate influence to particular states.

There is a good explanation of the

Agreed.

It's hard to wrap one's head round 2 Senators per state regardless of population. Well and truly bizarre.

What is a 3/5 rule? Never touched on in my classes.

It's hard to wrap one's head round 2 Senators per state regardless of population. Well and truly bizarre.

It's like the distribution of MPs in Britain before the 1832 Parliamentary Reform Act!

And,as I understand it, aren't a lot of the timings for reporting state results and the convening of the Electoral College based on the speed of travel in the 18th century?

Siope

I’m afraid it’s not a good explanation of the impacts. It’s neat, as a mathematical model, but ignores the structural inequalities of the EC. It glosses over, for example, the distorted impact of having electors per senator (because the spread of senators is a scandal in itself: eg, the combined population of 15 states – Alaska, Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Kentucky and South Carolina – is around 38 million people. These citizens are represented in the US Senate by 30 senators, even though their combined population is less than that of California which has just two senators.

Neither does the article even touch on the original three-fifths rule, which still impacts heavily by boosting the white vote, nor on how it gives disproportionate influence to particular states.

There is a good explanation of the

I think that finding a simple explanation that covers all aspects is quite difficult Siope, and in fairness to The Conversation I don’t think they were aiming to do more than provide a basic explanation of how the system works - which was enough as a starter for my simple brain to grasp. I think you intended at the ned of your post to attach something with more substance for those of us who have now got the basics, I’d like to read it if so?

Casdon Oh, bother. I did, then decided it was a bit biased, and meant to delete the last few words. I will try to find a straightforward fair explanation.

Maisie, I believe so.

Notah, the three-fifths ‘compromise’ was used to settle a row between free states (those where slavery was banned, mostly in the north) and slave-owning states over how population should be counted for deciding how many congressmen and Electors a state had. The free states said the whole population, the slave states wanted to exclude slaves. So the ‘compromise’ was that slaves only counted as three-fifths of a person. This increased the voting power of white slave owners (slaves couldn’t vote anyway) and generally, Northern states which had (and have) higher white populations. The amendment was amended a few times later, but the uneven distribution of Electors remains an issue - it’s why so few states (mostly still majority white) can swing the Presidential election. It’s a bit - a lot - more complicated than that, because of population numbers then, but that’s the essential basic explanation.

Siope

Casdon Oh, bother. I did, then decided it was a bit biased, and meant to delete the last few words. I will try to find a straightforward fair explanation.

Maisie, I believe so.

Notah, the three-fifths ‘compromise’ was used to settle a row between free states (those where slavery was banned, mostly in the north) and slave-owning states over how population should be counted for deciding how many congressmen and Electors a state had. The free states said the whole population, the slave states wanted to exclude slaves. So the ‘compromise’ was that slaves only counted as three-fifths of a person. This increased the voting power of white slave owners (slaves couldn’t vote anyway) and generally, Northern states which had (and have) higher white populations. The amendment was amended a few times later, but the uneven distribution of Electors remains an issue - it’s why so few states (mostly still majority white) can swing the Presidential election. It’s a bit - a lot - more complicated than that, because of population numbers then, but that’s the essential basic explanation.

Thank you.

When we've lived in America (holidays, tkr and other medical needs) I always study fascinating history classes. I've never learnt about 3/5 of a person. Perhaps civil war history (and later) should be next.

Thank you Siope that's really interesting.

Babs03

Trump and Musk, there are two men who should - as my old mum would say - find something better to do.

My old Mum still says it😁 my answer to ‘haven’t you got anything better to do’ was ‘yeah I’ve got more important things to do but nothing better’.

Norah

Casdon

It a lot mor complex than the system in the UK. This is a good explanation from The Conversation, but it takes some getting your head around.
theconversation.com/whose-votes-count-the-least-in-the-electoral-college-74280

Brilliant. Well explains the low population with higher electors/person apart from votes cast and popular vote.

I had to read it twice but think I’ve got it now.American politics is much more complex than ours.