US Presidential Election 2020

[Cnut237]

PR might seem fairer or more regular in theory but it divides power and causes fractured governance, it can mean a divided country and an inability to pass legislature without consent of every party in the spectrum of representatives.    I consider it dangerous for the weakness it might cause

The other way of looking at it is that it promotes cross-party working and removes some of the toxic factionalism that we see in less representative nations. A divided country is more the sort of thing we see when there are two possibilities that are in natural opposition to one another. Going beyond PR for a second, Germany is one of the best-run countries in Europe, but seems to always be run by a coalition with no single party in charge. Appreciate this is deviating from the topic somewhat as the thread is about the US, where two-party politics is firmly embedded.

[Vishnu.Reang]

PR might seem fairer or more regular in theory but it divides power and causes fractured governance, it can mean a divided country and an inability to pass legislature without consent of every party in the spectrum of representatives.    I consider it dangerous for the weakness it might cause

The other way of looking at it is that it promotes cross-party working and removes some of the toxic factionalism that we see in less representative nations. A divided country is more the sort of thing we see when there are two possibilities that are in natural opposition to one another. Going beyond PR for a second, Germany is one of the best-run countries in Europe, but seems to always be run by a coalition with no single party in charge. Appreciate this is deviating from the topic somewhat as the thread is about the US, where two-party politics is firmly embedded.

You are comparing two entirely different systems. In Germany, they have a combination of first-past-the-post (FPTP) and proportional representation. This helps some of the smaller parties in gaining representation. However, one negative with this system is that it is very difficult for a single party to gain majority on its own. On the other hand, the US system is purely based on FPTP. It helps in removing the smaller fringe-elements from political representation.

[Cnut237]

You are comparing two entirely different systems. In Germany, they have a combination of first-past-the-post (FPTP) and proportional representation. This helps some of the smaller parties in gaining representation. However, one negative with this system is that it is very difficult for a single party to gain majority on its own. On the other hand, the US system is purely based on FPTP. It helps in removing the smaller fringe-elements from political representation.

Yes. Perhaps I should have been clearer. I was using Germany as an example of a nation where parties work together and there is generally a coalition running the country, rather than a single party, and I was using this as a rebuttal to @STT's point about divisions and fractures. I wasn't using it as an example of pure PR.

Regarding your point about FPTP removing fringe elements, I would argue that this it is actually FPTP that empowers extremists. If a single party is in power, then it is easy for factions within that party to take control, as we have seen in the UK: the ruling Conservative party used to be broadly split for/against on Europe, but Boris Johnson has purged the europhiles and turned it into quite an extreme party. If instead the government is a coalition of viewpoints, then this helps to remove extremism as any compromises will necessarily always push towards a more centrist position - example, a simple coalition of a left-of-centre party and a right-of-centre party - where will they find agreement?

[Vishnu.Reang]

You are comparing two entirely different systems. In Germany, they have a combination of first-past-the-post (FPTP) and proportional representation. This helps some of the smaller parties in gaining representation. However, one negative with this system is that it is very difficult for a single party to gain majority on its own. On the other hand, the US system is purely based on FPTP. It helps in removing the smaller fringe-elements from political representation.

Yes. Perhaps I should have been clearer. I was using Germany as an example of a nation where parties work together and there is generally a coalition running the country, rather than a single party, and I was using this as a rebuttal to @STT's point about divisions and fractures. I wasn't using it as an example of pure PR.

Regarding your point about FPTP removing fringe elements, I would argue that this it is actually FPTP that empowers extremists. If a single party is in power, then it is easy for factions within that party to take control, as we have seen in the UK: the ruling Conservative party used to be broadly split for/against on Europe, but Boris Johnson has purged the europhiles and turned it into quite an extreme party. If instead the government is a coalition of viewpoints, then this helps to remove extremism as any compromises will necessarily always push towards a more centrist position - example, a simple coalition of a left-of-centre party and a right-of-centre party - where will they find agreement?

If you are saying that the Conservative Party is an extreme-right outfit, then I am sure that no one else in this forum would agree with you. FPTP has been very successful in removing both the extreme-right and extreme-left parties from the parliament. It was through the proportional representation that neo-Nazi parties such as BNP of England, NDP of Germany and Golden Dawn of Greece won their seats. If I am given a choice between the Tories and the BNP, then I would chose the former anytime of the day.

[Cnut237]

If you are saying that the Conservative Party is an extreme-right outfit, then I am sure that no one else in this forum would agree with you. FPTP has been very successful in removing both the extreme-right and extreme-left parties from the parliament. It was through the proportional representation that neo-Nazi parties such as BNP of England, NDP of Germany and Golden Dawn of Greece won their seats. If I am given a choice between the Tories and the BNP, then I would chose the former anytime of the day.

No, I'm not. It's perhaps a little disingenuous to suggest that anyone is talking about an alternative between government by a mainstream party and government by an extremist party. That's a false dichotomy. I appreciate however that I could have been clearer. I was saying that the tendency with a PR government - or any coalition - is that decisions are made by compromise, which of course will be the middle ground, whereas in FPTP government by a single party, there is nothing preventing a move towards a (somewhat) more extreme position. In the UK the Tories are a right-wing party who whilst in government have moved further to the right. But they're not extremists.

Apologies if I wasn't clear enough. However I will leave it there, as it's a thread about the US election.

[DeathAngel]

I’m pretty certain Trump will stay in office. They can make whatever noise they want in the media about it being close but I just can not see Biden getting enough support to get in. Trump will win comfortably imo.

[figmentofmyass]

Biden wins the popular vote but loses the Electoral College   11 in 100

No one wins the Electoral College
No candidate gets 270 electoral votes and Congress decides the election
<1 in 100

Only a 11 in 100 for this event seems to underline a Biden win but then the Clinton loss was unlikely I suppose.   I'm still not sure that site accounts for diversity in voting regions not following averages, obviously theres alot of votes that end up not having any weight overall because its a big win in that state and those votes werent needed there or minority votes elsewhere.

Never heard of the 2nd event being possible with congress.  I do recall the hung election of Bush jnr. and thats more probable at 5 in 100 apparently.   I could believe the votes might be obscure even on the day till late.

it hasn't happened in our lifetimes. the house chose the president in 2 elections---1800 and 1824, jefferson and jackson. the 1800 election was a total fluke; it only happened because electors neglected to distinguish between president and vice president, coincidentally resulting in a tie. that's unlikely to happen again!

based on the 2016 swing states, 270towin.com/ lists 64 possible combinations resulting in a 269-269 tie. still unlikely IMO, especially when you consider states like maine and nebraska who can split their electoral votes.

betfair has biden 53% to win, democrats 55% to win the senate, and democrats 85% to win the house. imagine if all 3 come true. the markets would hate it!

[aesma]

On the contrary I've heard that the markets are already betting on Biden and the Dems winning. Basically Trump has lowered taxes, but aside from that he has caused chaos with his multiple trade wars, so a return to more normal governing is seen as good by financiers, even if that mean taxes increasing a bit again. Which is not to say Biden would capitulate in front of China, but for example he could stop the war with the EU, revive the WTO, and negotiate with China with the backing of the EU.

[johhnyUA]

Basically Trump has lowered taxes, but aside from that he has caused chaos with his multiple trade wars, so a return to more normal governing is seen as good by financiers, even if that mean taxes increasing a bit again.

I doubt that if democrats will win, they stop such trade war against especially China. This is not question of politic, but  about economic. There some interests (most businesses that already located in China) to stay everything as it is, but also there enough businessmen that want to open in USA and trying to break China's manufactory down. So democrats will do the same politic as Trump, in terms of trade wars and antiglobalism.

[STT]

The point about Democrats winning everything would mean one party has the ability to pass significant amounts of legislation unopposed for about 2 years, it would be quite marked change to the normal impediment by either side.   I can post charts for Biden and Trump given from a markets based pricing, quite a few will hedge or try to hedge by taking a bet on the price as we approach the result.
   There is one hedge fund that only invests in the market while congress is not sitting, the theory being any progress by government is expensive and not to the country's advantage.  Unfortunately there is no scenario government ceases to spend money or overspend money every day but in recent years QE has meant markets like fiscal spending and weak currency and both candidates represent alot of over spend afaik.
  I had a market short open just before Trump won, markets did fall big on the news but only the perceptive pre trading and fears of the wider market.   When actual live hours in New York and Chicago came round the market ceased to falter and rose ever since, reason being they liked the news of fiscal stimulus and perceived it as easy money policy for banks, etc.   Hence I dont see a crash occurring with any candidate this time around, possibly Biden adjusts some policy but ultimately neither is hard money stance so I dont think its a big reaction.

[Juggy777]

Basically Trump has lowered taxes, but aside from that he has caused chaos with his multiple trade wars, so a return to more normal governing is seen as good by financiers, even if that mean taxes increasing a bit again.

I doubt that if democrats will win, they stop such trade war against especially China. This is not question of politic, but  about economic. There some interests (most businesses that already located in China) to stay everything as it is, but also there enough businessmen that want to open in USA and trying to break China's manufactory down. So democrats will do the same politic as Trump, in terms of trade wars and antiglobalism.

@johhnyUA maybe you have not read the media reports about the different version of US economy presented by Trump and Biden, because if you had read then you would have realised that Biden will end the trade war with China and make peace with them. Also Biden’s is keen to follow WTO guidelines, and didn’t they recently rule in favour of China? (see link below), hence it’s clear that Biden will not be continuing Trump’s trade war with China.

Sources:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5276355.msg55210532#msg55210532

https://www.wsj.com/articles/wto-finds-some-u-s-tariffs-on-china-violate-trade-rules-11600188559

[Vishnu.Reang]

Things just got a lot more complicated, with the death of SCOTUS judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg (known as Darth Vader Ginsburg among the conservatives). Remember that she refused to resign in 2016, when Barack Obama had a chance to replace her with a similar ultra-leftist judge. Now Trump is the president and the GOP holds a sizable majority in the senate (53-47). Even if the most liberal GOP senator (Lisa Murkowski) defects, the conservative pick will be elected to the SCOTUS. Just one and half months before the POTUS elections, now a new topic has emerged all of a sudden.

[Cnut237]

Things just got a lot more complicated, with the death of SCOTUS judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg (known as Darth Vader Ginsburg among the conservatives). Remember that she refused to resign in 2016, when Barack Obama had a chance to replace her with a similar ultra-leftist judge. Now Trump is the president and the GOP holds a sizable majority in the senate (53-47). Even if the most liberal GOP senator (Lisa Murkowski) defects, the conservative pick will be elected to the SCOTUS. Just one and half months before the POTUS elections, now a new topic has emerged all of a sudden.

Yes, McConnell blocked Obama's nomination in 2016, ostensibly because it was an election year. Now, 2020, with Trump about to nominate another Republican yes-man (or yes-woman, he's said it will be a woman)... we are in an election year, and McConnell is desperate to get the nomination in asap. They used to at least make attempts to hide this sort of hypocrisy, now it's like they couldn't care less.

[Vishnu.Reang]

Yes, McConnell blocked Obama's nomination in 2016, ostensibly because it was an election year. Now, 2020, with Trump about to nominate another Republican yes-man (or yes-woman, he's said it will be a woman)... we are in an election year, and McConnell is desperate to get the nomination in asap. They used to at least make attempts to hide this sort of hypocrisy, now it's like they couldn't care less.

Democrats are already looking forward to impose retaliatory steps, in case Trump goes ahead with his plan to nominate Amy Coney Barrett to the SCOTUS. One measure that they may adopt quickly after the 2020 elections is the removal of the filibuster option. Another option being discussed is to increase the strength of the SCOTUS from 9 to 11, which will allow the new president to nominate two judges. If this happens, then the SCOTUS may once again swing to the left.

[Cnut237]

There's not even a pretence of judicial impartiality here. If a certain party is desperate to appoint a certain judge - this goes for left as well as right - then the expectation is that that judge will make decisions based in large part on political leanings rather than on what the law actually states. I appreciate that laws are complex, nuanced and sometimes subjective and contradictory, but there shouldn't be attempts by politicians to introduce bias that works in their own favour. If you're going to do that, then why bother having judges at all? This is certainly not just a US problem, it happens all over the place. It's rare that you can find a country where the ruling party don't try to introduce unfairness that benefits themselves.

[bryant.coleman]

There's not even a pretence of judicial impartiality here. If a certain party is desperate to appoint a certain judge - this goes for left as well as right - then the expectation is that that judge will make decisions based in large part on political leanings rather than on what the law actually states. I appreciate that laws are complex, nuanced and sometimes subjective and contradictory, but there shouldn't be attempts by politicians to introduce bias that works in their own favour. If you're going to do that, then why bother having judges at all? This is certainly not just a US problem, it happens all over the place. It's rare that you can find a country where the ruling party don't try to introduce unfairness that benefits themselves.

Most of the so called "right-wing" judges are constitutionalist. That means that they make their judgements based on the constitution. On the other hand, the left-wing judges regularly disregard the constitution and make judgements by interpreting the laws in a way which suits them. There is bias in the judiciary, but this was started by the Democrats and their left-wing judges. Ruth Bader Ginsburg is the perfect example of an extremely biased judge. She was the one of those judges who made the landmark decision in Kennedy v. Louisiana, which spared death penalty for a monster (Patrick O'Neal Kennedy) who raped and nearly killed a 8-year old child. 

[Debonaire217]

I have read some articles and I found out that the founder of Tether, which is Brock Pierce is also a candidate for the US election. Thus, it just come up to my mind if this could affect the cryptocurrency as a whole since most of the crypto enthusiasts right now is holding tether because of the price decline of most of the cryptocurrencies.

[Cnut237]

Most of the so called "right-wing" judges are constitutionalist. That means that they make their judgements based on the constitution. On the other hand, the left-wing judges regularly disregard the constitution and make judgements by interpreting the laws in a way which suits them.

I don't really want to get into the left/right bad/good argument... but regardless of one's political leanings, I'd say that if a certain party really wants a certain judge to be appointed, then it's most likely because they want judgements that they agree with... so it erodes impartiality whichever party is pushing for the appointment.

[Vishnu.Reang]

I have read some articles and I found out that the founder of Tether, which is Brock Pierce is also a candidate for the US election. Thus, it just come up to my mind if this could affect the cryptocurrency as a whole since most of the crypto enthusiasts right now is holding tether because of the price decline of most of the cryptocurrencies.

In the US, they have a two-party system and these minor party candidates doesn't matter much. They get hardly any media coverage and their votes in most cases doesn't have any impact on the results. Even John McAfee was planning to run for the POTUS 2020 elections, but now it looks like he has cancelled his plans. The candidacy of Pierce may result in some media coverage, but don't expect much.

[bryant.coleman]

Most of the so called "right-wing" judges are constitutionalist. That means that they make their judgements based on the constitution. On the other hand, the left-wing judges regularly disregard the constitution and make judgements by interpreting the laws in a way which suits them.

I don't really want to get into the left/right bad/good argument... but regardless of one's political leanings, I'd say that if a certain party really wants a certain judge to be appointed, then it's most likely because they want judgements that they agree with... so it erodes impartiality whichever party is pushing for the appointment.

The judges can't take decisions as per their liking. They are supposed to follow the constitution and the penal code. And I believe that the system they have in the United States is much better than the one that exists in some of the other countries such as India. At least in the United States, corruption allegations against judges are very rare, since they are being held accountable.