Feeling for you all in the U.S. I never thought I would see the day when so many conservative Americans would put their candidate winning above democracy. But maybe the true Trump believers really believe the Democrats are the cheats and Trump is a saint.
I do think that many more Americans than I had hoped have been taken in by Trump's misinformation. I am very sorry for everyone, and afraid. My heart goes out to my American friends and family, especially those on the ship. I haven't cried yet. I have been too busy trying to keep myself in hand. I got banned from facebook for three days for calling a covidiot a liar. That's all it took... one word.
I don't think that the majority believe his lies. I think they don't care about them because they prefer his policies.
I expect American voters are fundamentally not that different from UK voters, or voters elsewhere, and have followed an enticing sounding sound-bite without thinking through the consequences. In the UK, the election last year was effectively determined by a single phrase, "Get Brexit Done" even though the implications for that hadn't been spelled out because 'Brexit' was largely undefined. In the US, the 2016 election seems to have similarly been to a significant effect determined by "Build the Wall" encapsulating a range of unfounded concerns about immigration (much as a lot of the Brexit debate here rested on unfounded concerns about immigration) - I doubt many people thought things through to the point of recognising that the immigration policy, of which building a wall was a part, was going to lead to dividing up families, of holding people in cages, much less a large number of children becoming pseudo-orphans as separation from their parents becomes permanent.
I expect American voters are fundamentally not that different from UK voters, or voters elsewhere, and have followed an enticing sounding sound-bite without thinking through the consequences. In the UK, the election last year was effectively determined by a single phrase, "Get Brexit Done" even though the implications for that hadn't been spelled out because 'Brexit' was largely undefined. In the US, the 2016 election seems to have similarly been to a significant effect determined by "Build the Wall" encapsulating a range of unfounded concerns about immigration (much as a lot of the Brexit debate here rested on unfounded concerns about immigration) - I doubt many people thought things through to the point of recognising that the immigration policy, of which building a wall was a part, was going to lead to dividing up families, of holding people in cages, much less a large number of children becoming pseudo-orphans as separation from their parents becomes permanent.
After four years of consequences, though, that can't really serve as an excuse/explanation for voting for his re-election.
We've had TEN years of the consequences of voting Tory, but they're still re-elected...
It all seems inexplicable to me.
Consequences are easy to ignore or minimize if they're not affecting you directly. Bonus points if the affected people are in a totally different economic or demographic category than you.
A few years back, a Justin Trudeau fundraiser was interrupted by some First Nations protestors who stood up and shouted about mercury contamination on one of Canada third-world reserves. Trudeau laughed and said "Thank you for your donation!" (Because the demonstrators had paid to get in.)
There was not much backlash against this from Trudeau's fan base, even though most of them are the kind of people who in the abstract would consider themselves sympathetic to indigenous complaints. But the actual content of those complains is enough of an abstraction that most of them can just ignore it when chuckling at their favorite politician's witty comeback.
We've had TEN years of the consequences of voting Tory, but they're still re-elected...
It all seems inexplicable to me.
Me too. People are very strange. I'm now able to say to myself, "Be calm Toad, Biden looks likely to win". But I am not saying it with relish. I'm not enjoying the likely victory. If it is confirmed I can't see myself celebrating, but collapsing, emotionally wrung out, and sleeping for a couple of days.
It remains vital, of course, that Biden wins, even though control of the Senate is a long shot. Ruth's point, that control of the executive is vital, is so true. State, Homeland Security, Interior (I think - I mean environment) and most especially, like so, so, so critical, Justice.
Thanks - I'd forgotten that. Never let principle get in the way of trade.
Someone should remind the Chinese Communists of this...
With most of those with whom they trade, the Chinese are by far the more powerful. They have no need to compromise their principles, rather that is the need of the other party (can't call them partners).
Thanks - I'd forgotten that. Never let principle get in the way of trade.
Someone should remind the Chinese Communists of this...
With most of those with whom they trade, the Chinese are by far the more powerful. They have no need to compromise their principles, rather that is the need of the other party (can't call them partners).
(another topic) screw fair trade, we suppliers should stop competing and cartel the bastards.
It's not policies. He could change nearly all of his policies overnight (he has done flips many times). It's identity. He's one of us. He speaks for us. And by "us" they mean conservative, frightened, racist, privileged, disenfranchised(-feeling) Americans. People who feel threatened by anything new, especially by "those people" demanding rights and fair treatment, and secondarily by anything they're told to feel frightened of.
A couple of links to tweets which were picked up by the Guardian.
Here, if you can bear it, is a whack-job who is reputedly Trump's spiritual adviser, giving us a handy video tutorial on what blasphemy looks like to (and, we are to presume, by) a Christian. Perhaps it'll come in handy in interfaith dialogue. We might bear in mind that Bannon has apparently called for Fauci to be beheaded.
And here's Bush the Elder's concession speech. It's shocking.
Here, if you can bear it, is a whack-job who is reputedly Trump's spiritual adviser, giving us a handy video tutorial on what blasphemy looks like to (and, we are to presume, by) a Christian. Perhaps it'll come in handy in interfaith dialogue. We might bear in mind that Bannon has apparently called for Fauci to be beheaded.
Fauci and FBI Director Chris Wray. I remember the time a few months ago when Bannon was the toast of elite conferences, universities inviting him to 'own the libs' and the BBC who featured him in an extended soft soap interview in front of Trump's wall.
It's not policies. He could change nearly all of his policies overnight (he has done flips many times). It's identity. He's one of us. He speaks for us. And by "us" they mean conservative, frightened, racist, privileged, disenfranchised(-feeling) Americans. People who feel threatened by anything new, especially by "those people" demanding rights and fair treatment, and secondarily by anything they're told to feel frightened of.
This seems right. For example, Mississippi and Florida both voted to give Trump their electoral votes while simultaneously adopting some Democratic policies via referendum. (Legalizing medical marijuana in Mississippi and a $15/hour minimum wage in Florida.)
The wait for a result must be excruciating for all Americans, but it does show that every vote matters. So often, in any national election, you get the feeling that voting in some places doesn't matter. This time that isn't the case.
I had lived on the East coast of the U.S. until 1980, when I moved to Arizona. I was amazed the day after my first Arizona Election Day when my boss said she'd been in line to vote after work the day before. Someone came out and announced that Reagan had won, and a lot of people got out of the line and went home without voting. Before I started voting early by mail, I made sure I always voted in the morning so that my vote would be counted.
The wait for a result must be excruciating for all Americans, but it does show that every vote matters. So often, in any national election, you get the feeling that voting in some places doesn't matter. This time that isn't the case.
Sure it is. There are plenty of states that aren't in contention. If you live on one of those, then your vote was more or less irrelevant, except to the overall popular vote totals. There were a dozen or so states where there was any doubt about the outcome going in to the election, depending on how you define "doubt". (My list would be Texas, Iowa, Ohio, Georgia, North Carolina, Florida, Arizona, Pennsylvania, Nevada, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, plus Maine and Nebraska's second districts.)
If you don't live in one of those states, you're in the same situation as anyone in a "safe" consituency anywhere.
How can a result be announced before the polls have even closed?
Polls close on the East Coast before they close on the West Coast. If the results from the East Coast are dramatic enough, it might not realistically matter how the West votes.
In the case of Reagan in 1980, WIkipedia has the map here - it's quite red.
The west coast closed their polls at 4 (UK time), by which time the east coast (shutting at 12) have declared
(Though as the newspaper acts as the electoral commission, I don't think the declaration has a direct link to the votes, and half the declarations are done instantly)
So this year Arizona was closing after a lot of states declared, it wouldn't have been implausible to have said it (although in this case the counting effectively counted trump then Boden in half the places and Boden then trump in the others, so things were slightly illusionary in the important states and it would have been called wrong)
But, a result can't be announced without votes being counted in sufficient numbers to make the result certain (as I understand it, the running tallies are reported even before the count is completed) ... can that really be done in the east coast before the west coast polls close?
I know in December here there were exit polls indicating a Conservative victory available about half an hour after polls closed, by the time I got to observe the count our candidate was already giving press interview expressing our views of what was predicted to be a Conservative victory and our hope that the exit polls were wrong (unfortunately, they weren't). But, exit polls are not results.
Evidently something can, Ive now seen two elections in real count and broken sleep (it helps that the Republican states are only open during working hours, so Kentucky has a massive head start. But I don't understand it. The west coast were declared instantly, and they couldn't have time to email let alone count so that must be pure calculation (maybe by exit poll? Or just experience)
But, a result can't be announced without votes being counted in sufficient numbers to make the result certain (as I understand it, the running tallies are reported even before the count is completed) ... can that really be done in the east coast before the west coast polls close?
The Eastern timezone by itself has more than half the votes in the electoral college. As soon as it was clear that the South was voting for Reagan, it was game over.
But, a result can't be announced without votes being counted in sufficient numbers to make the result certain (as I understand it, the running tallies are reported even before the count is completed) ... can that really be done in the east coast before the west coast polls close?
I know in December here there were exit polls indicating a Conservative victory available about half an hour after polls closed, by the time I got to observe the count our candidate was already giving press interview expressing our views of what was predicted to be a Conservative victory and our hope that the exit polls were wrong (unfortunately, they weren't). But, exit polls are not results.
Network exit poll projections became the center of angry dispute in 1980, when the results figured in President Jimmy Carter’s concession an hour and a half before West Coast polls closed, and the controversy continued in 1984 when the three networks all called President Reagan’s reelection shortly after 5 p.m. PST.
But I don't understand it. The west coast were declared instantly, and they couldn't have time to email let alone count so that must be pure calculation (maybe by exit poll? Or just experience)
Oregon and Washington conduct their elections entirely by mail, so those votes are mostly processed and already counted by the time the polls "close" in those states, which could account for their fast response.
The ballots aren't going to be all counted anytime soon. If I correctly understood something on our local NPR station today, California still has something like 4 million to count; and IIRC ballots can be received and accepted until Nov. 20, provided they were postmarked in time. I'm looking to verify that. Found one mention, and another that California is known for processing ballots slowly.
And that's just California. Other places are talking about recounts. Plus ballots occasionally turn up where they shouldn't be. Etc.
So, despite what anyone says, the popular vote isn't going to be settled right away--not if all the ballots are counted.
I'm very happy that Joe Biden looks like he'll have the required 270 electoral votes to win. But the electors do technically have some leeway to vote differently than the results they were given. I don't think it happens often. But *this* year...everything is potentially in play.
Then there's whatever the heck happens between the Electoral College vote fest and the inauguration.
Even then, whoever is inaugurated, there will be doubt, anger, conspiracy theories, and trending apathy (due to wanting to make it all go away).
So, fellow passengers, you may unbuckle your seat belts; but, in case of turbulence, be prepared to move your seats to their upright positions and fasten those belts. In the meantime, grab a comfy pillow; things to read, eat, drink; comfy clothes, and some bunny slippers; and a hobby/project to do.
You're free to get up and move around in the plane, but please don't all move to one side, ok?
But the electors do technically have some leeway to vote differently than the results they were given.
As with so many things, that varies from state to state. Most states have “faithless elector” laws that prevent any leeway. (In my state, voting for anyone other than the candidates of the party that nominated you constitutes automatic resignation from the office of elector, with your vote not counting and an alternate taking your place. It also results in a fine.). The Supreme Court has upheld such laws.
But I don't understand it. The west coast were declared instantly, and they couldn't have time to email let alone count so that must be pure calculation (maybe by exit poll? Or just experience)
Oregon and Washington conduct their elections entirely by mail, so those votes are mostly processed and already counted by the time the polls "close" in those states, which could account for their fast response.
The other states could learn from this. All postal votes should be in by a date before election day.
I've heard of "faithless electors". I knew it was a term of disapproval (unless, of course, they choose to vote *your* way ). But I didn't know about penalties.
Somewhere along the line, I came across or was taught the idea that we only had Lincoln because some electors didn't do as they were told. That was the main point in favor of the electoral college, ISTM.
However, I mentioned this once on the Ship, and someone told me it isn't true.
I've heard of "faithless electors". I knew it was a term of disapproval (unless, of course, they choose to vote *your* way ). But I didn't know about penalties.
Somewhere along the line, I came across or was taught the idea that we only had Lincoln because some electors didn't do as they were told. That was the main point in favor of the electoral college, ISTM.
However, I mentioned this once on the Ship, and someone told me it isn't true.
The article on the 1860 election notes some interesting divergences from modern practices:
Some key differences between modern elections and the those of the mid-nineteenth century are that at the time, not only was there was no secret ballot anywhere in the United States, but the state did not print and distribute ballots. In theory, any document containing a valid or at least non-excessive number names of citizens of a particular state (provided they were eligible to vote in the electoral college within that state) might have been accepted as a valid presidential ballot, however what this meant in practice was that a candidate's campaign was responsible for printing and distributing their own ballots (this service was typically done by supportive newspaper publishers). Moreover, since voters did not choose the president directly, but rather presidential electors, the only way for a voter to meaningfully support a particular candidate for president was cast a ballot for citizens of his state who would have pledged to vote for the candidate in the Electoral College. In ten southern slave states, no citizen would publicly pledge to vote for Abraham Lincoln, so citizens there had no legal means to vote for the Republican nominee. In most of Virginia, no publisher would print ballots for Lincoln's pledged electors.[23] While a citizen without access to a ballot for Lincoln could theoretically have still voted for him by means of a write-in ballot provided his state had electors pledged to Lincoln and the voter knew their identities, casting a ballot in favor of the Republican candidate in a strongly pro-slavery county would have incurred (at minimum) social ostracization (of course, casting a vote for Breckinridge in a strongly abolitionist county ran a voter the same risk).
The other states could learn from this. All postal votes should be in by a date before election day.
This is an unreasonable rule, because it places the question of whether a vote counts outside the power of the voter, and on to the ability of the postal system. For a sensible, functional voting system, a voter needs to have pretty much absolute assurance that their vote will be counted as long as they do their bit correctly. I can control when I put my vote in a mailbox. I can't control how long the post office takes to deliver it.
It's even worse when you introduce overseas voters in to the mix (military & diplomats on deployment, ex-pats) as the challenge of postal delays becomes greater. I applied for a postal vote whilst living in the US for every UK election I was eligible to vote in. I was never actually able to vote, because of the postal delay. Usually I didn't even get the ballot until after the election. That still pisses me off.
But, a result can't be announced without votes being counted in sufficient numbers to make the result certain (as I understand it, the running tallies are reported even before the count is completed) ... can that really be done in the east coast before the west coast polls close?
I know in December here there were exit polls indicating a Conservative victory available about half an hour after polls closed, by the time I got to observe the count our candidate was already giving press interview expressing our views of what was predicted to be a Conservative victory and our hope that the exit polls were wrong (unfortunately, they weren't). But, exit polls are not results.
Network exit poll projections became the center of angry dispute in 1980, when the results figured in President Jimmy Carter’s concession an hour and a half before West Coast polls closed, and the controversy continued in 1984 when the three networks all called President Reagan’s reelection shortly after 5 p.m. PST.
I'm not sure that it would be constitutional in the US, but a law that prevented any release of presidential election results (I would even want to prevent release of exit polls) until the last poll closes (even if it's well into the early morning of the day after election day on the east coast) would definitely win my support.
I'm not sure that it would be constitutional in the US, but a law that prevented any release of presidential election results (I would even want to prevent release of exit polls) until the last poll closes (even if it's well into the early morning of the day after election day on the east coast) would definitely win my support.
What Leorning Cniht said. Plus people's lives are messy, and it can be extremely difficult to :
a) Find some time to learn and think about the candidates, issues, referendums, etc.
~then~
b) (mail-in) Keep track of your ballot; find time to fill it out; do it with the right kind of pen; keep your focus; not spill anything on it; not bend or wrinkle it; keep track of the special, required return envelope; sign the envelope; find a mail box; drop it in--and remember to get it done by a certain date, so it will be post-marked in time. Oh, and some people who've grown up with e-mail, social media, etc. may have no clue about how to do "snail-mail" (i.e., the slower, physical kind).
c) (in person) Find out where you're supposed to go; not be waylaid by boss, kids, significant other, transportation; standing on tired feet in a long line, with low blood sugar from stress and maybe not having eaten (no income, or to stressed to think of it); not be waylaid by voter suppression, malfeasance, election corruption...
It ain't easy, being a voter.
ETA: Oh, and ballots are often big and unwieldly, and have a LOT of items on them. Here in California, ours are about 10" x 14", and printed on both sides. This time around, there were 4 sheets of paper: 7 printed and 1 blank. There's local and state stuff, in addition to the presidency and Congress.
Comments
As were Israeli citizens.
I don't think that the majority believe his lies. I think they don't care about them because they prefer his policies.
Seperating kids from their parents, cutting taxes for the wealthy, denying people healthcare, that sort of thing.
Mind you, a worrying number of people have voted for him, so maybe those things are, after all, dear to their hearts.
We in the UK have, as you say, done exactly the same thing, to our cost.
It all seems inexplicable to me.
Someone should remind the Chinese Communists of this...
Consequences are easy to ignore or minimize if they're not affecting you directly. Bonus points if the affected people are in a totally different economic or demographic category than you.
A few years back, a Justin Trudeau fundraiser was interrupted by some First Nations protestors who stood up and shouted about mercury contamination on one of Canada third-world reserves. Trudeau laughed and said "Thank you for your donation!" (Because the demonstrators had paid to get in.)
There was not much backlash against this from Trudeau's fan base, even though most of them are the kind of people who in the abstract would consider themselves sympathetic to indigenous complaints. But the actual content of those complains is enough of an abstraction that most of them can just ignore it when chuckling at their favorite politician's witty comeback.
Me too. People are very strange. I'm now able to say to myself, "Be calm Toad, Biden looks likely to win". But I am not saying it with relish. I'm not enjoying the likely victory. If it is confirmed I can't see myself celebrating, but collapsing, emotionally wrung out, and sleeping for a couple of days.
It remains vital, of course, that Biden wins, even though control of the Senate is a long shot. Ruth's point, that control of the executive is vital, is so true. State, Homeland Security, Interior (I think - I mean environment) and most especially, like so, so, so critical, Justice.
With most of those with whom they trade, the Chinese are by far the more powerful. They have no need to compromise their principles, rather that is the need of the other party (can't call them partners).
Donald trump Jr wants total war. trump's former top adviser is calling for the beheading of the FBI chief.
The verification is within.
(another topic) screw fair trade, we suppliers should stop competing and cartel the bastards.
Here, if you can bear it, is a whack-job who is reputedly Trump's spiritual adviser, giving us a handy video tutorial on what blasphemy looks like to (and, we are to presume, by) a Christian. Perhaps it'll come in handy in interfaith dialogue. We might bear in mind that Bannon has apparently called for Fauci to be beheaded.
And here's Bush the Elder's concession speech. It's shocking.
Twitter said it couldn't bring those links up.
Link.
Fauci and FBI Director Chris Wray. I remember the time a few months ago when Bannon was the toast of elite conferences, universities inviting him to 'own the libs' and the BBC who featured him in an extended soft soap interview in front of Trump's wall.
Just for the record, that's a satirical site.
I actually meant to post the
This seems right. For example, Mississippi and Florida both voted to give Trump their electoral votes while simultaneously adopting some Democratic policies via referendum. (Legalizing medical marijuana in Mississippi and a $15/hour minimum wage in Florida.)
Sure it is. There are plenty of states that aren't in contention. If you live on one of those, then your vote was more or less irrelevant, except to the overall popular vote totals. There were a dozen or so states where there was any doubt about the outcome going in to the election, depending on how you define "doubt". (My list would be Texas, Iowa, Ohio, Georgia, North Carolina, Florida, Arizona, Pennsylvania, Nevada, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, plus Maine and Nebraska's second districts.)
If you don't live in one of those states, you're in the same situation as anyone in a "safe" consituency anywhere.
Polls close on the East Coast before they close on the West Coast. If the results from the East Coast are dramatic enough, it might not realistically matter how the West votes.
In the case of Reagan in 1980, WIkipedia has the map here - it's quite red.
(Though as the newspaper acts as the electoral commission, I don't think the declaration has a direct link to the votes, and half the declarations are done instantly)
So this year Arizona was closing after a lot of states declared, it wouldn't have been implausible to have said it (although in this case the counting effectively counted trump then Boden in half the places and Boden then trump in the others, so things were slightly illusionary in the important states and it would have been called wrong)
I know in December here there were exit polls indicating a Conservative victory available about half an hour after polls closed, by the time I got to observe the count our candidate was already giving press interview expressing our views of what was predicted to be a Conservative victory and our hope that the exit polls were wrong (unfortunately, they weren't). But, exit polls are not results.
The Eastern timezone by itself has more than half the votes in the electoral college. As soon as it was clear that the South was voting for Reagan, it was game over.
Old election timing prediction, but it shows time range (big country)
The electoral college votes are concentrated on the east coast, so if they all went red, the outcome would be done and dusted pretty quick.
Oregon and Washington conduct their elections entirely by mail, so those votes are mostly processed and already counted by the time the polls "close" in those states, which could account for their fast response.
And that's just California. Other places are talking about recounts. Plus ballots occasionally turn up where they shouldn't be. Etc.
So, despite what anyone says, the popular vote isn't going to be settled right away--not if all the ballots are counted.
I'm very happy that Joe Biden looks like he'll have the required 270 electoral votes to win. But the electors do technically have some leeway to vote differently than the results they were given. I don't think it happens often. But *this* year...everything is potentially in play.
Then there's whatever the heck happens between the Electoral College vote fest and the inauguration.
Even then, whoever is inaugurated, there will be doubt, anger, conspiracy theories, and trending apathy (due to wanting to make it all go away).
So, fellow passengers, you may unbuckle your seat belts; but, in case of turbulence, be prepared to move your seats to their upright positions and fasten those belts. In the meantime, grab a comfy pillow; things to read, eat, drink; comfy clothes, and some bunny slippers; and a hobby/project to do.
You're free to get up and move around in the plane, but please don't all move to one side, ok?
The other states could learn from this. All postal votes should be in by a date before election day.
Somewhere along the line, I came across or was taught the idea that we only had Lincoln because some electors didn't do as they were told. That was the main point in favor of the electoral college, ISTM.
However, I mentioned this once on the Ship, and someone told me it isn't true.
The article on the 1860 election notes some interesting divergences from modern practices:
This is an unreasonable rule, because it places the question of whether a vote counts outside the power of the voter, and on to the ability of the postal system. For a sensible, functional voting system, a voter needs to have pretty much absolute assurance that their vote will be counted as long as they do their bit correctly. I can control when I put my vote in a mailbox. I can't control how long the post office takes to deliver it.
It's even worse when you introduce overseas voters in to the mix (military & diplomats on deployment, ex-pats) as the challenge of postal delays becomes greater. I applied for a postal vote whilst living in the US for every UK election I was eligible to vote in. I was never actually able to vote, because of the postal delay. Usually I didn't even get the ballot until after the election. That still pisses me off.
I'm not sure that it would be constitutional in the US, but a law that prevented any release of presidential election results (I would even want to prevent release of exit polls) until the last poll closes (even if it's well into the early morning of the day after election day on the east coast) would definitely win my support.
I like that idea also.
a) Find some time to learn and think about the candidates, issues, referendums, etc.
~then~
b) (mail-in) Keep track of your ballot; find time to fill it out; do it with the right kind of pen; keep your focus; not spill anything on it; not bend or wrinkle it; keep track of the special, required return envelope; sign the envelope; find a mail box; drop it in--and remember to get it done by a certain date, so it will be post-marked in time. Oh, and some people who've grown up with e-mail, social media, etc. may have no clue about how to do "snail-mail" (i.e., the slower, physical kind).
c) (in person) Find out where you're supposed to go; not be waylaid by boss, kids, significant other, transportation; standing on tired feet in a long line, with low blood sugar from stress and maybe not having eaten (no income, or to stressed to think of it); not be waylaid by voter suppression, malfeasance, election corruption...
It ain't easy, being a voter.
ETA: Oh, and ballots are often big and unwieldly, and have a LOT of items on them. Here in California, ours are about 10" x 14", and printed on both sides. This time around, there were 4 sheets of paper: 7 printed and 1 blank. There's local and state stuff, in addition to the presidency and Congress.