Topic: who Want To Bet On 2024 USA elections? - page 20. (Read 6913 times)

I agree that it shouldn't be like that, but the historical process could be different for every nation, and how it was built may not be the same. USA didn't had 10 nations in history take it over, you look at any city in Europe and you will see maybe a dozen different kingdoms in the past took it over, not for everyone of them but there are plenty like that, and it's thousands of years old.

So, when it finally reached the current  borders, things were not the same. That history plays a big role in making elections different, because USA had one thing; manifest destiny. That meant that it wasn't this big, it was 13 colonies, so while it was growing up, the power play made it important for elections to be a bit different than ours. I still think it would not matter all that much, they can do it like this, or do it popular vote, it's quite similar results for them if you ask me.

Yeah, it is a huge area, but I think other countries with similar sizes have a different style of election.

So, I don't think it is a requirement for the US to be like this, it is just how the history of the country defined their election system

Well.. what else Greg Abbot is supposed to do? His arguments are correct. Why should states such as Texas and Arizona take responsibility for something that resulted from failed policies of the Biden regime? He is doing the right thing by shipping these migrants to sanctuary cities such as New York and Washington DC. That will reduce the burden on southern states such as Texas, and at the same time, citizens in deep-blue cities such as New York who love these illegal immigrants will get an opportunity to help the very people whom they support.

Ironically, the plan of the governor of Texas of shipping migrants to New York and other blue states may help the Trump campaign in the next year. I have already seen authorities in NYC asking the federal government for help and even people within the democrat party to get worried on the thousands of migrants who have arrived to the city.

If Greg Abbot and other southern governors continue to send migrants to blue states and even purple ones, Trump could take leverage of such situation and regain power over the switching electoral votes. If he goes by such strategy, I would not be surprised to see his odds increasing.

If you look at their developments since the official announcement of the candidates participating in the election it is quite clear that Biden and Trump are the two election participants with the greatest campaign potential and support from the US public in fact these two people have taken many actions or movements to can be more liked and have more participants.
It just that both of them seem to have almost equal chances if you look at the number of supporters in each camp and these two candidates also always carry out several controversial actions in every campaign activity they carry out.
Maybe Trump has a slightly superior chance of being the strongest candidate.

Every country with a definite presidential system of government and elections based on public voting certainly has its own various ways of calculating each vote but for the US I also feel a little strange about the way of counting there but that has been going on for a long time and all US people accept all decisions in every election held.

In my country votes are taken by each person and each region or zone will be collected as a whole from all existing regions and taken by whoever has the most support votes so that the decision to win the election is a little longer.

The situation at the US-Mexico border is becoming worse with each passing day. Tens of thousands of illegals are crossing into the Southern US states such as Texas, Arizona, New Mexico and California without any obstacle. The border agents are just taking their biometrics and then they release them into the US. Especially along the border states, there is a sharp rise in sentiments against Biden. And this maybe one of the reasons why he is trailing in polls so badly. But even then, 10 point lead for Trump against Biden is difficult to believe.

Trump is already leading the polls. I'm not surprised. He is making lots of talks and it doesn't just entertain the people but also makes them see what is happening around the US while the world is in chaos. People are living paycheck to paycheck and are on strike demanding salary increases.


Like JFK. He isn't winning though. And regulations to crypto will still not change even if he is the president, it's Gensler who the people didn't vote for.

A few crazy polls suddenly popped up, showing huge leads for Donald Trump. I am not sure how much we can trust them, but many of them are from reputed polling agencies. Out of the last 8 opinion polls being counted in RealClear, all of them are either showing a lead for Trump, or showing a tie. The last time Biden lead in a poll was on 13th September.

The poll from The Messenger/HarrisX shows a lead of 5 points for Trump (46 vs 41), while the poll from ABC News/Wash Post shows a massive 10 point lead (52 vs 42). The link can be found here:

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/troubles-biden-age-reelection-campaign-poll/story?id=103436611&mc_cid=f4d249874b&mc_eid=UNIQID

Yes, voting is the responsibility of the whole nation but here we are talking about the betting on the USA Elections. Voting is totally different from betting. Usually, only the citizens of that country are allowed to vote, where the elections are held but people all around the world can bet on the result of the elections on online betting sites (that offer these bets on votes).

Being not a citizen of USA, i would prefer the candidate for the USA presidency to be crypto friendly and I will bet on that party that I think will make policies for crypto adoption.

The reason for the electoral college being arranged in a particular way is to do with the original union of the states, with many states lacking a larger population but contributing a large land mass and productive capacity.   USA has world class resources and independence that not many countries can boast from oil to farm land its all important.   To alter any of that is not as simple as it appears as it would require to allow states to vote on the new terms, more upset is really justified considering its worked for so long now.

Well. I am not sure we are supposed to take the fact USA still uses the imperial system, in order to evaluate their political performance (and democracy) when compared to the rest of the countries in the planet.

Usually, there is a cultural thing where people around the world have the perception that USA is an ideal model for others to follow, but I believe that is rather an idea which has been implanted to us and is not necessarily true.

The system can be pretty good, but if the people do not take care of their motherland, the system won't do anything for them. A person like Trump was not supposed to be relevant or successful in politics (within such "perfect" system) and yet, here we are, discussing odds on his possible second term.

It does have quite a number of issues. You can have a look at them here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_the_United_States#Criticisms

It's by no means the best electoral system in the world, I don't even think it ranks very high at all worldwide.

Also, following your thoughts, why the whole world uses metric system and the US doesn't? Maybe the US should learn from the world.

That is certainly true,and most likely one of them will become the president. But for us here it's important to predict who of them will have better campaign, who will gather more supporters. We should predict it beforehand, the sooner the better, and this will help us to win with better multipliers.


It may seem "weird" for us, non-experts, but it doesn't mean it's wrong. My thoughts: if they are doing it like this in the most powerful country in the world, maybe we should learn from them?

I'm talking about the US elections, and with their electoral system I don't know very well what things are like, but the thing about the Electoral Colleges works for the USA, is it good if they do the Electoral Colleges thing or can the vote be popular? Because I have seen that in some cases things can change noticeably if this electoral system is changed, would the results be the same if the electoral colleges are eliminated?

This system is one of the things I am most worried about, of course I am in a country where voting is done in an "automated" Manner but the system we have in the USA seems safer to me through the emails, there is not as much eagerness in it, but the system with the college is what makes me have many doubts, because it is like in Colombia too perhaps? Naturally , the ones that decide who they put in a presidency are the registries, because their voting Power is Greater or they have more power than that of the average citizen, so in the USA, things can be seen in a lesser way than at the same time. The Electoral Colleges are quite strong in that they exert their force.

In some countries, popular votes say that Cheating can be done with Manuals votes , but I see that they give more importance to that than to any other bear, so the politicians' work has to be stronger to be able to convince people to do things Well, for the rest I think it is very difficult for them to be able to have a type of force majeure, in this order of ideas we can say that when it comes to how to have the best electoral system it is up to each Country to decide . I think that in Russia they tried to do Voting using Blockchain in a state, but it didn't go well , they have a lot of Vulnerabilities, but in this case the USA what I like is that it is more relaxed, people don't have to go to the educational centers to put their signature, their voice, stand in line, there are People who Even get up early to go vote, I really don't understand that kind of fever , but that's how it is Around Here.

Today I saw some interviews on people who openly support Donald Trump as their president for the next period, and each time I see those kind of interviews at rallies I grow more and more convinced things are going to start to get weird, specially within the Republican party, since the party will definitely respond to the ideas and thoughts of those people, there comes the further shift to the right from.

After the other candidates are left out the race, I would expect to see Trump odds to slightly grow. To me, Desantis has already failed to be a remotely good escape or way for people to move on from Trump and what he has meant to the United States.

No unexpected nor surprise candidate has appeared yet and it does not seem it will happen soon.

^^ The situation in USA is not the same as any other place, they have a HUUUGE land there, think of it like all of Europe is being one single nation and you will see my point. That is why I said most cases, because in most cases it would be insane to just let it be like that, but there are cases when it is not.

This is why it may work for them, not like I am against popular votes neither, if they decide to go that way then I would be fine with that, not like I am American so I do not care, all I am saying is that making this work in a nation that is much smaller would be weird, but making it like this here in a giant land doesn't sound too weird to me. I am not saying this one is better, just saying it only makes sense for a nation like this.

It makes sense if you recall that, even though we consider the United States to be a whole country, in reality they are several Republics or "States" which are supposed to coexists within a federal union.

So if you were the head of state within a Republic, which is at the same time part of a confederation or a union (as Florida, Texas or California are) would you be happy if people from other parts of the union had more say on your Republic or State than the very own people who live there? It would undoubtedly people angry if they could not even be able to decide their own policies, because the lack of population.

So, in order for direct voting to be implemented in USA, the State government would need to be abolished in favor of the Federal one.

I know that, the point is that it makes no sense at all. If republicans "really" think that people at New York or California would vote for them a lot more because they will finally have a say in this, and they think that there is a chance that they could win, then let the democrats get rid of this method and just go into popular vote. Imagine a world where you end up voting for someone 10+ more millions of votes, and they still lose the election, how does that make sense to them.

I get the whole "smaller states would have a say in this that way" but why? Why would a smaller state dictate what millions of people did not want? There is a possibility of someone who gets 75 million votes lose to someone with 65 million votes, so smaller states should dictate what that 10 million people can't have? Makes no sense to me.

What do you mean?
Is not that what democracy is supposed to be about? Letting the majority of people to lead the road of a country?

Now, if you want to debate that the majority of people is not always right, then that is something different, in the end, most of current dictatorships were established through a democratic process. And even Trump (someone who is not even considered to be a good leader) was elected through a democratic process.

The United States would definitely change forever if the elections where decided through direct vote, instead electoral colleges. Republicans would need to actually make an effort to earn the trust of the average swing voter, instead relying their chances in their usual hard base. 

The voting style in the US is very complex and has a long history.

In most other countries it's usually one vote per person, and then they just count it, in different ways sometimes, but basically one person, one vote in the end.

In the US, your vote could literally no matter at all, because they take the majority per "zone", with each "zone" having a certain weight in the final vote. It's weird.