What is the biggest issue the United States is currently facing?

[cpwill]

2018 United States Senate election in California - Wikipedia

huh?

2018

Democrats 6,019,422 votes
Republicans 5,093,942 votes

How do you get 5 million votes if you're not on the ballot?

Well, if you will check your link, you will note that those 5,093,942 votes were the result for Kevin de Leon, who is also a Democrat.

California's election law puts the two candidates with the most votes in the overall primary on the General Election ballot, regardless of their party.

So, in the California General, according to your link, the results were:

Democrats: 11,113,364
Republicans: 0

Because a Republican wasn't on the Ballot, just two Democrats.


Again, from your own link:

For the second time since direct elections to the Senate began after the passage of the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913, no Republican appeared on the general election ballot for U.S. Senate in California. The highest Republican finisher in the primary won only 8.3 percent of the vote, and the 10 Republicans only won 31.2 percent of the vote between them....

​

So.... yeah. The whole "popular vote for the Senate" talking point is... well, BS. :shrug:

 

[Gus Fring]

Domestic right-wing terrorism.

 

[Logician Man]

Trump openly admitting from the Oval Office that ,yes, he would indeed accept intel from foreign countries that would provide information on his 2020 Dem candidates and not alert the FBI that a foreign entity had offered to aid and abet him in committing treason.

 

[Frigidweirdo]

Well, if you will check your link, you will note that those 5,093,942 votes were the result for Kevin de Leon, who is also a Democrat.

California's election law puts the two candidates with the most votes in the overall primary on the General Election ballot, regardless of their party.

So, in the California General, according to your link, the results were:

Democrats: 11,113,364
Republicans: 0

Because a Republican wasn't on the Ballot, just two Democrats.


Again, from your own link:

For the second time since direct elections to the Senate began after the passage of the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913, no Republican appeared on the general election ballot for U.S. Senate in California. The highest Republican finisher in the primary won only 8.3 percent of the vote, and the 10 Republicans only won 31.2 percent of the vote between them....

​

So.... yeah. The whole "popular vote for the Senate" talking point is... well, BS. :shrug:

Yeah, I didn't notice that. I was looking at the map which was blue and red.

However even that doesn't make up for the numbers.

The Republicans got 99,757,291 votes in 3 elections
The Democrats got 124,632,828 votes in 3 elections

In the two CA elections the Democrats got 15,530,256 votes.

If we take that from their first total we get 109,102,570 which is still 10 million more than the Republicans got. And yet the Republicans controlled the Senate throughout the whole period. Fair? I mean, you're taking out the largest Democratic state from the equation and the Republicans still don't get enough votes.

So.... yeah. The whole "popular vote for the Senate" talking point is... well, not BS.

 

[Vadinho]

What do you believe I the biggest issue the United States is currently facing?

It is that the GOP has lost its mind and the nation elected a lying sack of...

 

[Masterhawk]

What about the economy?

 

[rickc]

Faux News

The Brainwashing of the Right

 

[Luther]

What do you believe I the biggest issue the United States is currently facing?

Too high number of legal immigration

Also, the majority apathetic American society is a Huge...... problem

 

[cpwill]

Yeah, I didn't notice that. I was looking at the map which was blue and red.

We all get in a hurry.

However even that doesn't make up for the numbers.

The Republicans got 99,757,291 votes in 3 elections
The Democrats got 124,632,828 votes in 3 elections

In the two CA elections the Democrats got 15,530,256 votes.

.....no. In the the 2016 and 2018 California Senate elections, Democrats received a total of 23,357,014 votes. (See: Footnote C in confirming that both losing and winning Democrat votes counted for the Democrats in the vote totals.)

If we take that from their first total we get 109,102,570

So this number (I'm just accepting your vote totals) becomes 101,275,814...

which is still 10 million more than the Republicans got.

and this number becomes about 1.5 million, or, about two thirds of a percentage point of the total votes cast.

And yet the Republicans controlled the Senate throughout the whole period. Fair?

Absolutely. The Senate is not intended to be a representation of the popular vote - that's the House of Representatives' job. The Senate is supposed to represent the States, and also turn over more slowly so as to be able to cool popular passions that may be more rapidly expressed in the House.


But take a look at the elections themselves.

In 2018, for example, Republicans took 34,723,013 votes, to the Democrats 52,260,651, but we've agreed that California doesn't count, so, really it's 34,723,013 (GOP) to 41,147,807 (DNC), meaning that the GOP had about 45.75% of the vote, and the DNC had about 54.25% of the vote.

There were a total of 33 seats up for grabs, but, we've agreed that California is weird, so, we're measuring 32. Of those 32, Democrats took 21 (or, 65.625%) , and Republicans took 11 (or, 34.375%)

So, in 2018, once you put California to the side for not allowing the GOP to even compete on the ballot, Democrats won 65% of the seats with only 54% of the vote... because the majority of those states were Democrat-leaning states.


In 2016, the story was the opposite. The GOP won a larger portion of seats than their share of the popular vote, because the majority of those states were Republican-leaning ones.


In 2020, the majority of states up for Senate races are GOP-leaning, and so probably that year will look more like 2016, and 2022 looks a bit more evenly split. Guessing, I'd say, unless the Democrats manage to elect a generally unpopular or overly ambitious individual for President on Trump's low approval numbers, I'd say they'll pick up seats then (Wisconsin, Virginia, and Pennsylvania will all be in play, but the GOP will be defending). In 2020, it looks like their best pickup chance may be - maybe Arizona? And they will have to defend their seat in Alabama. So long as Roy Moore (plz, no) doesn't win the GOP primary again, that seat is probably lost.


Sorry, got on an aside, there. The Senate is intended to represent the States, not the popular vote, which is why the popular vote doesn't lay down very well against Senate election results at the national level. And that's a good thing. It forces broader national concurrence, and the slower replacement rate of the Senate reduces the political impact of temporary passion.

 

[Frigidweirdo]

We all get in a hurry.


So this number (I'm just accepting your vote totals) becomes 101,275,814...



and this number becomes about 1.5 million, or, about two thirds of a percentage point of the total votes cast.



Absolutely. The Senate is not intended to be a representation of the popular vote - that's the House of Representatives' job. The Senate is supposed to represent the States, and also turn over more slowly so as to be able to cool popular passions that may be more rapidly expressed in the House.


But take a look at the elections themselves.

In, for example, Republicans took 34,723,013 votes, to the Democrats 52,260,651, but we've agreed that California doesn't count, so, really it's 34,723,013 (GOP) to 41,147,807 (DNC), meaning that the GOP had about 45.75% of the vote, and the DNC had about 54.25% of the vote.

There were a total of 33 seats up for grabs, but, we've agreed that California is weird, so, we're measuring 32. Of those 32, Democrats took 21 (or, 65.625%) , and Republicans took 11 (or, 34.375%)

So, in 2018, once you put California to the side for not allowing the GOP to even compete on the ballot, Democrats won 65% of the seats with only 54% of the vote... because the majority of those states were Democrat-leaning states.


In, the story was the opposite. The GOP won a larger portion of seats than their share of the popular vote, because the majority of those states were Republican-leaning ones.


In , the majority of states up for Senate races are GOP-leaning, and so probably that year will look more like 2016, and 2022 looks a bit more evenly split. Guessing, I'd say, unless the Democrats manage to elect a generally unpopular or overly ambitious individual for President on Trump's low approval numbers, I'd say they'll pick up seats then (Wisconsin, Virginia, and Pennsylvania will all be in play, but the GOP will be defending). In 2020, it looks like their best pickup chance may be - maybe Arizona? And they will have to defend their seat in Alabama. So long as Roy Moore (plz, no) doesn't win the GOP primary again, that seat is probably lost.


Sorry, got on an aside, there. The Senate is intended to represent the States, not the popular vote, which is why the popular vote doesn't lay down very well against Senate election results at the national level. And that's a good thing. It forces broader national concurrence, and the slower replacement rate of the Senate reduces the political impact of temporary passion.

Yes, you're right about 23 million. I realized just now the wikipage takes you back 6 years to the same seat's election and not the previous election.

Still you've got a higher number taking out the Democrat's largest state's voters, than you get with the Republicans.

My point still stands.

I understand the Senate is supposed to represent the states. Question is, does it? No, all it does is give an easy ride to the Republicans.

Do people in those states get a VIABLE CHOICE?

No, they get to choose between Republican and Democrat.

In Germany the third largest party gained 90 seats out of 700, that's about 13% of the seats. In the US the third largest party has ZERO senate seats, ZERO House seats, Zero Supreme Court justices, ZERO presidents (ever), ZERO state upper houses and ZERO state lower houses. Sounds an awful lot like a corrupt African dictatorship, wouldn't you say?

There's not much point in looking at 2018 as an individual vote, because the Senate cycles over 6 years. We can't gain a decent view of what's going on in one election.

In 2018 only two seats changed hands. That's the reality, though it still doesn't tell us the desires of the people.

The problem with the Senate representing the states is that in the partisan modern era of US politics, it all depends on how many states each party has. Puerto Rico can't become a state because the Republicans know they could lose their ability to control the Senate. That's all the matters. Stuff the people of Puerto Rico. The Republicans will do all manner of cheating to get to keep what they have.

Then the US goes around the world talking about democracy.

Doesn't that sound rather odd?

The Senate is broken, it simply doesn't work for modern politics any more.
The House is broken, too much gerrymandering (from both parties but mostly the Republicans)
The presidency is broken.
The Supreme Court is broken too.

What works any more? At least what works FOR THE PEOPLE rather than the rich who control government?

 

[cpwill]

Yes, you're right about 23 million...My point still stands.

I understand the Senate is supposed to represent the states

Then the point is irrelevant. It's like arguing that the current makeup of the House is unfair or the 2012 Presidential Election was unfair because neither represent how Counties voted.

Question is, does it? No, all it does is give an easy ride to the Republicans.

No - Republicans managed to win more states over the last couple of cycles. If you're old enough to remember alllllll the way back to 2008 and 2009, way, way, way back in those dark ages when blackberry's were still considered modern and chic, and dinosaurs were roaming the earth, Democrats held a supermajority of the Senate.

Do people in those states get a VIABLE CHOICE?

No, they get to choose between Republican and Democrat.

Incorrect - there is no law stating third parties can't run, and they do. If the GOP or Democrat party ever ceased to represent large enough sections of the populace, other parties would take their space and, indeed, we've seen third parties swing Presidential elections before.

Right now, however, Republicans and Democrats are the two largest parties because they are the most effective at gaining the support of and then representing their various bases while appealing to a broad enough cross-section of the public.

In Germany the third largest party gained 90 seats out of 700, that's about 13% of the seats. In the US the third largest party has ZERO senate seats

1. We have independents in the Senate. Lisa Murkowski and Bernie Sanders, for example.
2. This is also not a very good argument. If the people of the United States believe that the GOP and DNC represent them so well that the non GOP/DNC people they bother to elect are vanishingly few, well, that's an argument in favor of the GOP and DNC, not against them.

ZERO House seats

I'm fairly certain we have some Independent House seats (or have) as well, but none come to mind.

Zero Supreme Court justices

Of any party, because Supreme Court Justices are not elected and do not run on party platforms. Quite the opposite; they are supposed to eschew such things in their work, and only apply the law.

ZERO presidents (ever)

Actually the parties have changed a couple of times. One Third Party candidate for President not only won the White House, he proceeded to then lead the nation through a Civil War, and his party became the next major party, in competition with Democrats.

Sounds an awful lot like a corrupt African dictatorship, wouldn't you say?

No. I'm guessing you haven't had much interaction with corrupt, third-world dictatorships?

There's not much point in looking at 2018 as an individual vote, because the Senate cycles over 6 years. We can't gain a decent view of what's going on in one election.

On the contrary, if we want to see the extent to which the popular vote is disproportionate to seats gained, then you very much want to look at election cycles.

In 2018 only two seats changed hands. That's the reality, though it still doesn't tell us the desires of the people.

Sure it does. It tells us, specifically, that in two states, people decided they'd rather have a Senator from the other party, and in the other 31 states up for election that year, they were fine with the party they'd chosen before.

The problem with the Senate representing the states is that in the partisan modern era of US politics, it all depends on how many states each party has.

Parties don't have states. Parties have offices in states that try to win the support of the people of those states. States can (and do) swing back and forth from one party to the other.

Puerto Rico can't become a state because the Republicans know they could lose their ability to control the Senate.

No, losing elections is how the GOP can lose control of the Senate, just as they have before, and just as Democrats have before.

Additionally, Puerto Rico is somewhat divided on Statehood. With Statehood, after all, come Federal Taxes. Right now, they get to be citizens, but don't have to pay up for it .

That being said, Congress is the admitting authority for States per the Constitution; it's their decision to make. If Democrats want Puerto Rico to be a State, well, they had their chance back when they controlled the entirety of the Legislature and Executive, and probably will have their chance again.

That's all the matters. Stuff the people of Puerto Rico. The Republicans will do all manner of cheating to get to keep what they have.

:roll:

 

[cpwill]

Then the US goes around the world talking about democracy.

Well, Liberal Representative Government, certainly, complete with at least a nod towards individual human rights.

Doesn't that sound rather odd?

Not really. It's our founding creed, and we are one of (if not the) major reason why it's spread and been maintained across as much of the world as it has, though we'd have to acknowledge the British role as well.

The Senate is broken, it simply doesn't work for modern politics any more.
The House is broken, too much gerrymandering

On the contrary - both chambers of Congress are fine. The system is broken mostly in the sense that they have given their power over to the Executive, but they can (and should) take it back when they wish. The balance of powers within the federal government still works.

Between the Federal Government and the States, I'd agree, the balance of power is broken, hard, in favor of the federal government. That needs to be reined in and fixed up.

(from both parties but mostly the Republicans)

Sure. Conveniently the people who disagree with you politically are also morally inferior. :roll:

You know they sell the same story about liberals and democrats, right? "Well we'd win, and have the House, and we'd be able to do all these things, except those darn Democrats are such cheaters, and..."

:roll:

The presidency is broken.

No, the populace is broken, and they have decided (because politics has replaced religion in many sectors, and functions as entertainment as well as tribe) to make the President a kind of weird, public avatar/king figure, vesting in him responsibility for all that happens or fails to happen during his tenure, regardless of the powers vested in him (or not) by the Constitution and that which is imposed on him by exogenous powers.

The Executive, is, if anything, far too healthy - far too strong. It's not broken, it's on steroids, given it by a lazy Congress who wished to avoid blame for decision-making.

The Supreme Court is broken too.

The Supreme Court is also fine. I disagree with some of their positions, which it is my right as an American citizen to do, but that doesn't make them "broken", it means that I'm a citizen in a free country where people disagree.

What works any more? At least what works FOR THE PEOPLE

Wal-Mart. Chik Fil-A. Amazon. Entities that have to work "for the people", or they die.

rather than the rich who control government?

The rich don't control government. No one - including the people nominally at its head - "controls government". "Government" in the U.S. isn't a single entity capable of being controlled - it's a sprawling set of competing feifdoms, broken down along sometimes political and sometimes functional cross-sections.

 

[vesper]

I chose immigration because I could only vote for one but I see several issues to be just as concerning that are a threat to the country's well being. Spending/debt, government corruption, opiod crisis, healthcare costs, and the growing attacks on our Constitution.....

 

[Frigidweirdo]

Then the point is irrelevant. It's like arguing that the current makeup of the House is unfair or the 2012 Presidential Election was unfair because neither represent how Counties voted.



No - Republicans managed to win more states over the last couple of cycles. If you're old enough to remember alllllll the way back to 2008 and 2009, way, way, way back in those dark ages when blackberry's were still considered modern and chic, and dinosaurs were roaming the earth, Democrats held a supermajority of the Senate.



Incorrect - there is no law stating third parties can't run, and they do. If the GOP or Democrat party ever ceased to represent large enough sections of the populace, other parties would take their space and, indeed, we've seen third parties swing Presidential elections before.

Right now, however, Republicans and Democrats are the two largest parties because they are the most effective at gaining the support of and then representing their various bases while appealing to a broad enough cross-section of the public.



1. We have independents in the Senate. Lisa Murkowski and Bernie Sanders, for example.
2. This is also not a very good argument. If the people of the United States believe that the GOP and DNC represent them so well that the non GOP/DNC people they bother to elect are vanishingly few, well, that's an argument in favor of the GOP and DNC, not against them.

You're saying the Republicans don't get an easy ride?

Way back when, https://www.debatepolitics.com/poll...states-currently-facing-9.html#post1070209634 they had a super majority for 60 days, hardly enough to do anything.

In 2008 they had 57 seats after the election.

But then again they gained 110 million votes in the 2004-2008 period while the Republicans gained 94 million. And this was with election in CA which were Dem v. Rep. 57 seats for 54% of the votes.

Right now it's 44.45% of the votes for 51% of the seats.

Seems the Republicans have an advantage to me.


As for third parties, no, I'm not incorrect.

I didn't say third parties couldn't run. I use the word "viable" for a reason. With FPTP people are far more likely to vote for one of the main parties. Why? Well, you only need look at the Peterborough by-election a few weeks back to see why. Two parties with more or less the same right wing ideology got 51% of the vote, and still the left wing party with only 30% of the vote won the seat. The right split their vote.

In Germany you can see that 8% of the voters last time and 10% of the voters the time before last changed their votes from FPTP with big parties to smaller parties with PR.

Literally FPTP encourages negative voting. People vote AGAINST candidates or parties they don't want to see in power, rather than positive voting which is them choosing the representation they want.

And yes, the US has seen third parties come along, kind of. All they do is split the vote. Clinton go in because of that, didn't he? Is that democracy where people are afraid of voting for the party of their choice? No, it is not.

Yes, the US has independents. Usually these independents will be Republican independents or Democrat independents. Everyone knows where Sanders is at. He's even trying to be a Democratic president. Sanders even ran and won the Vermont Democratic primary, then ran as an independent against not a single Democrat. Lisa Murkowski ran and won the Republican primary and ran as a Republican in 2016.

Independent isn't third party. The Libertarians are the third largest party in the US, I'd assume, and they don't have any.

Yes sure, Supreme Court justices are SUPPOSED to ignore party politics. Hence why the Supreme Court happens to be BROKEN.

That we have to go back to the 1860s to find an example of a third party president kind of proves my point.

You're guessing I haven't had much interaction with third word dictatorships huh? I don't give much information away, but I'll just say that you're kind of wrong.

An election cycle is 6 years for the Senate. 2018 is not an election cycle.

2018 tells us that six seats changed hands, Nevada and Arizona went Democrat and Florida, North Dakota, Missouri and Indiana went Republican.

It doesn't necessarily tell us the people were fine with the Senator they had before. It might just be that many people vote negatively because they don't want the other party to get in. If Germany has 8% of people voting negatively in FPTP elections when they know the make up of the Bundestag is going to be PR anyway, what percentage of people do you think vote negatively in the US? I'd suggest that at least 1/3rd of voters would vote for other parties if there were a viable choice.

Sure, states swing, well some do. But many states are pretty staunch. The two political parties will see certain states as almost certain, unless they really mess things up.

 

[Frigidweirdo]

Well, Liberal Representative Government, certainly, complete with at least a nod towards individual human rights.



Not really. It's our founding creed, and we are one of (if not the) major reason why it's spread and been maintained across as much of the world as it has, though we'd have to acknowledge the British role as well.



On the contrary - both chambers of Congress are fine. The system is broken mostly in the sense that they have given their power over to the Executive, but they can (and should) take it back when they wish. The balance of powers within the federal government still works.

Between the Federal Government and the States, I'd agree, the balance of power is broken, hard, in favor of the federal government. That needs to be reined in and fixed up.




Sure. Conveniently the people who disagree with you politically are also morally inferior. :roll:

You know they sell the same story about liberals and democrats, right? "Well we'd win, and have the House, and we'd be able to do all these things, except those darn Democrats are such cheaters, and..."

:roll:



No, the populace is broken, and they have decided (because politics has replaced religion in many sectors, and functions as entertainment as well as tribe) to make the President a kind of weird, public avatar/king figure, vesting in him responsibility for all that happens or fails to happen during his tenure, regardless of the powers vested in him (or not) by the Constitution and that which is imposed on him by exogenous powers.

The Executive, is, if anything, far too healthy - far too strong. It's not broken, it's on steroids, given it by a lazy Congress who wished to avoid blame for decision-making.



The Supreme Court is also fine. I disagree with some of their positions, which it is my right as an American citizen to do, but that doesn't make them "broken", it means that I'm a citizen in a free country where people disagree.




Wal-Mart. Chik Fil-A. Amazon. Entities that have to work "for the people", or they die.




The rich don't control government. No one - including the people nominally at its head - "controls government". "Government" in the U.S. isn't a single entity capable of being controlled - it's a sprawling set of competing feifdoms, broken down along sometimes political and sometimes functional cross-sections.

The US isn't democratic. I mean there's a view that it is, but the people don't really get to choose the president. Some do, but not all.

It's the founding creed, but then why go around preaching something that the US doesn't actually do?

You think both chambers are fine, but they're broken.

Why?

Firstly because they don't do what they were supposed to do. Secondly because they don't do what people think they should do. The Senate does not represent the states properly. Because of the FPTP system in the House, the Senate is also massively partisan. They're supposed to put Supreme Court justices in place based on how well they're going to follow the law, instead they're all jumping around being partisan. They stopped the President getting his pick, which is also a ridiculous way of promoting people to the Supreme Court anyway.

And yes, the whole balance between the states and the feds is broken too. Everything is broken.

"Sure. Conveniently the people who disagree with you politically are also morally inferior. "

You're making bad assumptions here. I'm not Republican or Democrat and wouldn't dream of voting for either of them. I prefer a system where I GET A REAL VIABLE CHOICE. Currently I don't. No one represents me. They represent themselves and the big money This isn't about "morally inferior" because it's not even about morals.

Yeah sure, multinationals work in the US. Okay, they're destroying communities, they're manipulating governments to get what they want at the expense of small business owners, they're taking profits out of the communities, they making money making more like gambling, they're promoting boom and bust, but hell, they're getting what they want.

The rich don't control government huh?

Ever tried to track the Koch brothers?

Seriously, the Koch brothers move so much money around to make it look like it's not their companies doing it. They'll set up a political group, then fund it through a variety of their own companies which are so hard to track down, perhaps some other rich people will throw money in there too and wham.

They've manage to change a ruling in the Supreme Court about the amount of money allowed in politics to.... infinite. They done so much stuff to control the right wing. Soros is doing similar things on the left.

These are the main players, potentially, it's hard to know seeing how secretive the money flowing into politics is.

 

[NoC_T]

Gotta be immigration. It put Trump in office.

 

[lurchadams]

What do you believe I the biggest issue the United States is currently facing?

Climate change/pollution is not only America's biggest issue, it's the world's biggest issue. When countries start running out of water and food - if you think terrorism and genocide have been problems in the past - just wait, you ain't seen nothing yet :yt

 

[JMaximus]

What do you believe I the biggest issue the United States is currently facing?

I voted for the last option because I didn't see what I wanted there - and I blame you for that! :2razz:

All kidding aside, I really think the biggest problem facing the United States (and, increasingly, many other wealthy western nations) is lazy, ineffective, complacent political institutions (and the politicians that fill them).

Nearly a century of seemingly-guaranteed success and peace have accustomed the people to believing these things come easy and free - they do not. Others worked hard for what today's generations have and they have been living for the last several decades off their labors.