US Presidential Election 2020

[QV]

The US has some serious election integrity issues and this situation is a disaster.  Now, either outcome will be considered illegitimate by a very large portion of the electorate. 

If there were more control on voter registration and voter ID there would be far more integrity and less to question.  It's 2020, why this isn't sorted by now is beyond me.   

Why do the democrats oppose voter ID?

 

[SeaKingTacco]

The US has some serious election integrity issues and this situation is a disaster.  Now, either outcome will be considered illegitimate by a very large portion of the electorate. 

If there were more control on voter registration and voter ID there would be far more integrity and less to question.  It's 2020, why this isn't sorted by now is beyond me.   

Why do the democrats oppose voter ID?

From what I have gleaned, some oppose voter ID because getting the proper ID in the first place can be a significant hurdle for some folks and could be viewed as a form of voter suppression.  I can honestly see both sides of the argument.

 

[mariomike]

From what I have gleaned, some oppose voter ID because getting the proper ID in the first place can be a significant hurdle for some folks and could be viewed as a form of voter suppression.  I can honestly see both sides of the argument.

For anyone interested in a deep dive into Voter Identification laws in the United States,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_Identification_laws_in_the_United_States

References,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_Identification_laws_in_the_United_States#References

 

[MilEME09]

The US has some serious election integrity issues and this situation is a disaster.  Now, either outcome will be considered illegitimate by a very large portion of the electorate. 

If there were more control on voter registration and voter ID there would be far more integrity and less to question.  It's 2020, why this isn't sorted by now is beyond me.   

Why do the democrats oppose voter ID?

The US has become a very divided nation, rich vs poor, urban vs rural, religious vs non religious, etc... it is something that could take a generation to even start to heal.

 

[QV]

From what I have gleaned, some oppose voter ID because getting the proper ID in the first place can be a significant hurdle for some folks and could be viewed as a form of voter suppression.  I can honestly see both sides of the argument.

I acknowledge that is the argument the left uses, but it's not a legitimate argument.  The problems that are sure to follow with no voter ID requirements significantly outweigh any perceived hurdles getting an ID or having a system in place to ID would impose.

What do we do in Canada and do we have problems on this front?

 

[QV]

The US has become a very divided nation, rich vs poor, urban vs rural, religious vs non religious, etc... it is something that could take a generation to even start to heal.

This divide has been propagated mainly by the MSM. The media has gotten too political, or maybe it's just more obvious now because the legacy media doesn't have the monopoly anymore with all the social media mediums out there. 

It doesn't have to be that way, if msm actually reported honestly and ethically. 

 

[Remius]

This divide has been propagated mainly by the MSM. The media has gotten too political, or maybe it's just more obvious now because the legacy media doesn't have the monopoly anymore with all the social media mediums out there. 

It doesn't have to be that way, if msm actually reported honestly and ethically.

The issue is on both sides due to polarized view points.  When you use words like lock her up, stand back and stand by, “enemy of the people” or racist, mysoginist etc to define your political opponents it adds fuel to the fire. 

The MSM may report it or use it, but both sides are the ones that fuel it.

 

[BeyondTheNow]

The extreme divides in the States can’t be solely blamed on media, regardless of its evolution in the last decade.

There are countless, countless studies, reports, articles, entire post-secondary courses/areas of study dedicated to dissecting, evaluating & understanding the history of the US and why its composition is as schismatic as it is. Every single one of their issues existed long before media. Media has largely offered a voice and greater mode of exposure/awareness to the problems.

Edit to add: Technology (apart from just how news is mostly only read on the internet as oppose to publication), on the other hand, can be argued that it’s helped enflame and broaden tensions by way of closed SM groups, dark web, etc, areas where ppl can share their ideals with more like-minded individuals.

 

[mariomike]

The US has become a very divided nation, rich vs poor,

I consider union members to be middle-class. Neither rich or poor. 

Joe Biden has the support of labor unions,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Joe_Biden_2020_presidential_campaign_endorsements_from_organizations#Labor_unions

( Including one that I am familiar with: The International Association of Fire Fighters and Paramedics ).

< snip > religious vs non religious, etc...

Might depend on which  religion.

eg: My wife is a US citizen, and Jewish. In the 2018 Mid-term election, only 17% of Jewish voters voted Republican.

If elected ( which I do not believe will happen ), Joe Biden would be only the second Catholic president. The first, and so far only, other has been John F. Kennedy, also a Democrat, in 1960.

( I recall it wasn't uncommon years ago in Toronto when entering homes to see portraits of JFK and Jesus Christ side by side on walls. )

 

[mariomike]

It doesn't have to be that way, if msm actually reported honestly and ethically.

Negative news = Fake News?

The Fake News is working overtime. Just reported that, despite the tremendous success we are having with the economy & all things else, 91% of the Network News about me is negative (Fake). Why do we work so hard in working with the media when it is corrupt? Take away credentials?
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/994179864436596736

 

[mariomike]

The MSM may report it or use it, but both sides are the ones that fuel it.

Like President Obama's greatest scandal during his two terms: The tan suit.
https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ALeKk01fuxeKB0FNKJML2mBMbtAqbemcjw%3A1604596641297&ei=oTOkX_udEdGntQaxk7uwAw&q=obama+%22tan+suit%22&oq=obama+%22tan+suit%22&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQAzIGCAAQBxAeMgIIADICCAAyAggAMgIIADICCAAyAggAMgQIABAeMgQIABAeOgQIIxAnOgUIABDJAzoNCAAQsQMQyQMQFBCHAjoHCAAQFBCHAlC8-QVYw64GYO65BmgAcAB4AIABpgKIAaIJkgEFMC41LjKYAQCgAQGqAQdnd3Mtd2l6wAEB&sclient=psy-ab&ved=0ahUKEwi78r6m9OvsAhXRU80KHbHJDjYQ4dUDCAw&uact=5#spf=1604596751330

 

[Brad Sallows]

Voter ID is only relevant to in-person voting.  In-person voting isn't the problem right now.

Mail-in voting is the problem.  The crux is that the chain of custody between the voter and the ballot box is weaker than for in-person voting.  That can only be mitigated by adding control measures: signature verification, clear postmarking (date-stamping), rules laid down in advance and followed to the letter.

I have written here before: jurisdictions with less experience supporting mail-in voting were warned by jurisdictions with more experience not to attempt it without more time to prepare.

Shotgun distribution (by-mail ballot sent to every registered voter) creates more problems than on-demand distribution (voter requests ballot).

PA seems to have created a perfect storm.  A large number of mail-in ballots were requested; mail-in ballots were to be counted last; the state supreme court ruled that a signature mismatch would not invalidate a ballot, and also that an absent or illegible postmark on ballots received during the 3-day extension window would not necessarily invalidate them.

 

[dapaterson]

The delays in counting mail in ballots are directly attributable to state legislators directing that approach.  States without such restrictions experienced significantly less friction and difficulty.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>The extreme divides in the States can’t be solely blamed on media, regardless of its evolution in the last decade.

Not solely, but certainly heavily.  The inability or unwillingness of the big names to be honest brokers motivated people to move to other channels.  Now the big names and other establishment figures whine and moan that information that they don't think merits distribution, is being distributed.  Big Media actively pushed people into silos by becoming too much the tool of a narrow set of political and social interests/viewpoints, an evolution which accelerated remarkably in the past two decades.

Four years ago, some members of Big Media resolved to try to understand the parts of America they realized they didn't understand.  Apparently they either failed, or failed to try: David Brooks on Twitter, Nov 4: "Our job in the media is to capture reality so that when reality voices itself, like last night, people aren’t surprised. Pretty massive failure. We still are not good at capturing the rightward half of the country."  (Sen Tom Cotton's response: "Maybe don't fire your editor for publishing conservatives.")

 

[QV]

Voter ID is only relevant to in-person voting.  In-person voting isn't the problem right now.

Mail-in voting is the problem.  The crux is that the chain of custody between the voter and the ballot box is weaker than for in-person voting.  That can only be mitigated by adding control measures: signature verification, clear postmarking (date-stamping), rules laid down in advance and followed to the letter.

I have written here before: jurisdictions with less experience supporting mail-in voting were warned by jurisdictions with more experience not to attempt it without more time to prepare.

Shotgun distribution (by-mail ballot sent to every registered voter) creates more problems than on-demand distribution (voter requests ballot).

PA seems to have created a perfect storm.  A large number of mail-in ballots were requested; mail-in ballots were to be counted last; the state supreme court ruled that a signature mismatch would not invalidate a ballot, and also that an absent or illegible postmark on ballots received during the 3-day extension window would not necessarily invalidate them.

Voter ID is also integral to mail in balloting.  To ensure one person/one vote, the voter is a legal voter (not someone who died in 1986), and the ability to track ballots received vs not. 

 

[Navy_Pete]

From what I have gleaned, some oppose voter ID because getting the proper ID in the first place can be a significant hurdle for some folks and could be viewed as a form of voter suppression.  I can honestly see both sides of the argument.

In Canada you don't actually need a piece of ID; you can vote with your voter info card and a bill to the same address, or also have someone vouch for you.

https://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=vot&dir=ids&document=index&lang=e

The people that have a hard time getting ID are generally low income, and/or may not be able to get a driver's license (ie disabled). If you are on the margins of the system already that's one more kick in the bits.

Also, voter fraud is a pretty serious federal offense. There are a number of stories about the hammer coming down on someone voting when they thought they were eligible (ie on parole or similar), but I can't remember reading about a single case of real, actual voter fraud, let alone anyone being charged with doing something like stuffing the ballot boxes. Voter suppression tactics like making it hard to vote, or fraudulent robocalls misdirecting people are pretty common though, so if I was going to target something to protect the integrity of the vote, it would be ensuring everyone could vote, not chasing phantoms about things that don't exist.

You need a non-partisan federal organization to do that consistently across a country, so with the insane mismash of state approaches and regulations, it's not really a surprise that a lot of people don't believe they live in a real democracy.

 

[Kirkhill]

Popular Vote for US Presidents from WWI

41.84 Woodrow Wilson
49.24 Woodrow Wilson
60.32 Warren Harding
54.04 Calvin Coolidge
58.21 Herbert Hoover

57.41 Franklin Roosevelt
60.80 Franklin Roosevelt
54.74 Franklin Roosevelt
53.39 Franklin Roosevelt
49.55 Harry Truman
55.18 Dwight Eisenhower
57.37 Dwight Eisenhower

49.72 John Kennedy
61.05 Lyndon Johnson
43.42 Richard Nixon
60.67 Richard Nixon
50.08 Jimmy Carter

50.75 Ronald Reagan
58.77 Ronald Reagan
53.37 George H.W. Bush

43.01 Bill Clinton
49.23 Bill Clinton
47.87 George W. Bush
50.73 George W. Bush
52.93 Barack Obama
51.06 Barack Obama

46.09 Donald Trump.

George Washington gained 100% of the vote running unopposed.
James Monroe won his third term with 80.61% in 1820
Thomas Jefferson won his second term with 72.79% in 1804
Andrew Jackson won as a Democrat with votes of 55.93% and 54.74% in 1828 and 1832
Abraham Lincoln won as a Republican with votes of 39.65% and 55.03% in 1860 and 1864

The US has always been a nation divided it seems.  Except when George Washington ran unopposed and the United Empire Loyalists were moving to Canada.

 

[mariomike]

Popular Vote for US Presidents from WWI

43.01 Bill Clinton
49.23 Bill Clinton
47.87 George W. Bush
50.73 George W. Bush
52.93 Barack Obama
51.06 Barack Obama

46.09 Donald Trump.

Interesting. Assuming if / when the vote for 2020 is counted, the majority of Americans have voted against the Republicans in seven of the last eight presidential elections.

Trump says Republicans would ‘never’ be elected again if it was easier to vote
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/mar/30/trump-republican-party-voting-reform-coronavirus

“I don’t want everybody to vote,” Paul Weyrich, an influential conservative activist, said in 1980. “As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down.”

 

[dapaterson]

Popular Vote for US Presidents from WWI
...
43.01 Bill Clinton
49.23 Bill Clinton
...
46.09 Donald Trump.

So you're saying that, on average, Trump is about as popular as Clinton.  Taking that comparison to its logical conclusion, given that two of his three wives are not natural-born citizens, I guess that means Marla Maples is the presumptive 2036 Republican nominee.

 

[Remius]

So you're saying that, on average, Trump is about as popular as Clinton.  Taking that comparison to its logical conclusion, given that two of his three wives are not natural-born citizens, I guess that means Marla Maples is the presumptive 2036 Republican nominee.

He did say if ivanka wasn’t his daughter he would date her so maybe her in 2036?