A doom foretold

Andrew L. Urban

 The die was cast in the dodgyfication of the 2020 election, and as I anticipated back in November 2023, the shoehorning of Joe Biden into the White House is a chicken now coming home to roost.

 In the US presidential debate on Jun 27 in Atlanta, Georgia, Joe Biden’s humiliation was expected by everyone not in thrall of Democrat talking points about their mentally declining president.

To the apparent surprise of the supplicant media and Democrat sycophants, Donald Trump abided by the rules set down by the White House, rising to the occasion – and Joe Biden crumbled into semi-senility in front of the cameras.

Within hours the shell-shocked Democrats were openly talking about replacing Biden … but had no easy way to do it and no ready candidate to do it with.

The fiasco of Biden’s presidency had been bottled into a 90 minute debate. The ramifications will ripple towards the shores of history, with the Democrat party bobbing on its waves.

The Babylon Bee

This entry was posted in Quotidian. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to A doom foretold

  1. Garry Stannus says:

    Re your…

    “Democrats were openly talking about replacing Biden … but had no easy way to do it”

    … I wonder if those democrat ‘delegates’ (winners in the primaries) are themselves able to switch allegiance … from Biden to another Democrat before it actually gets to the election.

    I don’t know if any such conjectured switch would be ethical … I simply don’t know whether there are accepted norms of electoral practice which would countenance such a thing … I have a vague memory that some electoral college member/s may have done something like that which I’m positing as occurring not many years ago…

    I have only a limited understanding of the American system …

    I looked up [ https://www.usa.gov/primaries-caucuses ] … but it didn’t help me all that much, if at all.

    Might I conclude that I am glad that the Australian voting system allows for preferential voting. I don’t think that ‘first past the post’ is a model which always expresses the popular will. Just in passing, I think the ‘anti Le Pen’ voters in France got around their ‘first past the post’ system by persuading various candidates not to run against others in the second round who were of the same anti Le Pen mind.

    In my view, preferential voting is fairer to the wishes of the individual voter than is first-past-the-post. And what is even fairer – in my further view – is Tasmania’s Hare-Clark system and our state’s system of multi-member electorates.

    I would be happy to explain why I think Tassie’s got a relatively good/better system than our other states, but I’d wait for some uptake from the readers…

    Best wishes to those who pursue democracy – Garry.

    • andrew says:

      As I understand it from consuming far too much US current affairs, democrat delegates pledged to Biden are glued to Biden; only he can release them. Currently, Biden is glued to the candidacy …

      Second: I agree Australia’s preferential system seems to produce more democratic results, and I cite the recent UK elections, where (for example) Nigel Farage’s Reform party won 14.3% of the vote and won 5 seats; the Lib Dems won 12.2% and got 72 seats.

      I for one would be interested to hear your views on Tasmania’s system, with its appealing multi-member system … I’d love to hear how it is better for democracy with on-the-ground examples as to why. What beneficial results can be attributed to it?

      • Garry Stannus says:

        Yes, Andrew: thanks for your reply. In a single member system, Tasmania would return only one member per electorate, we would have only Liberal or Labor candidates elected to the Parliament … because in any one of the five electoral divisions … on preferences, only Libs or Labs would ever win a majority of the vote.

        That would mean that only the two major parties would ever have a voice in the Parliament. Could I add that a Parliament should be representative of the people (i.e. truly representative). What I’m putting is that in single member electorates, it’s a winner take all system – on the basis of each particular electorate/’seat’. Really, it’s a sort of ‘first past the post’ system.

        You asked “to hear how it is better for democracy with on-the-ground examples as to why.

        The Tasmanian House of Assembly has 5 Divisions (i.e. electorates). Each electorate elects 7 members. So there are 5 x 7 = 35 members elected to the Lower House.

        My electorate for the Tasmanian House of Assembly is Lyons. Voting in Lyons in our last (2024) election returned: 3 Liberal, 2 Labor, 1 Green and 1 Lambie (Network). [The ‘Party Vote’ Count can be read at https://www.abc.net.au/news/elections/tas/2024/guide/lyon%5D

        Thankfully, under the Tassie system, most of us who vote for a political party or vote strongly for a particular candidate … have our voices heard in the Parliament.

        The parliament – ideally – is meant to be a forum for debate on behalf of the people. (‘Demo-cracy’ is about power residing in the people). In Lyons, we now have seven members … the majority (3) are Liberal, Labor have two, and the Greens and the Jacqui Lambie Network have one. So we now have that variety of views (from the Lyons electorate) elected to our House of Assemble … our voices can be heard, while within the House matters are decided on the number of voices heard on any particular question.

        I hope that’s a ‘starter’ and that I’ve pointed out how I feel about multi-member electorates. (Doesn’t our Senate somehow use multi-member electorates (on a state basis?).

        Gotta go, it’s about to snow and I’ve gotta light the barbie!

  2. Pv says:

    Changing or creating statutes in law to change a misdemeanor to a felony by weapon osati on of the Justice system is a felony. It’s called perverting the course of Justice. Letting Biden off possible charges because he’s old and has a bad memory is another example . If he’s not competent to stand trial , he’s not competent to run a country !! All the colluding democrats should be charged !!!all !! If Trump does not seek revenge , he’s a better man than all of them . They should all all be expelled from the house , the senate ,and the judiciary as a minimum , and the public servants who aided and abetted should be jailed. Cleanse the place. ! I was convicted of a crime emanating from a room which didn’t exist so I know how easily corrupt lawyers can get a win , in spite of nil evidence.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *