I have a memory (around August) of some republicans asking voters to vote democrat as they fear that another 4 years would damage their long-term election prospects. They must be getting ready to distance themselves from the whole Trump presidency now there is nothing to gain by even mentioning it.
Clinton only polled 90.5% in 2016, but with Trump at 4.1% there was presumably a third candidate ... actually there was 2.10% to write-in, 1.58% to Libertarian and 1.37% to Green according to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election_in_the_District_of_Columbia). I don't see any other candidates than the main two this time.
Totally rational - it's all about a federation of states who send delegates to choose the president - totally logical that those states decide how their delegates are elected. Hard for us to understand as UK has not had any power at the equivalent (ie county) levels since the end of baronial power structures in the middle ages I guess.
but I guess a Biden presidency is good news for Amtrak as I believe he is a big supporter of the passenger rail system in the US?Yes, in UK not counting starts before close of Polls, so if you had these levels of votes volumes wise the results would not be known for some time.
The writers of the Consitution mostly had British ancestry so as I understand it they tended to follow British practice of the time unless there was a good reason to disagree. One of those disagreements was obviously the desire to be a republic not a monarchy, so they had to come up with a way of electing their monarch replacement. But what they've ended up with is in some ways just a more extreme version of the British voting system, with fewer "constituencies" for Congress and more voters in each and in the case of the electoral college 50 "constituencies" of wildly varying sizes - which of course Britain also had at the time with rotten and pocket boroughs. But even today some of the problems with the US system are also visible in Britain's FPTP system. In particular the system only really works for two parties, which are essentially hardwired into the American system but a bit looser here, and can lead to results that don't reflect the popular vote.
Apols to take this thread off topic
Thanks - interesting points to think about. Of course when they did it (1770s? ) the US was small with many fewer states that were much smaller with lower populations.
They have history, though, they voted for Dubya. Twice.
Fair. Just pointing out they have a history of making dumb decisions in elections.
Sometimes Trump slightly reminds me of one of those dreadful tone deaf singers on X Factor that doesn’t get past the first audition (although unfortunately he did), who’s mother has told them their whole life that they’ll be a pop star one day.
The same could be said of 2016 - didn't Clinton win the popular vote?
Ive been watching the Sky News coverage
Apols to take this thread off topic
