|
Ur Getting Fatter posted:What does this even mean? This John Oliver guy did a pretty good job explaining that exact sentiment a couple weeks ago. You should check it out.
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 03:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 02:57 |
|
|
Ur Getting Fatter posted:What does this even mean? How do you go from "all the candidates are terrible" to "Hillary is good but shady? Jesus Christ calm down. I agree "terrible" wasn't the correct word to use as I was mostly thinking of the other candidates. It's very apparent if you read my post that I don't hate Clinton. "Good but shady" means exactly what it means. She is mostly a good candidate but (like most politicians) with some things to be skeptical about (awkward rapid switches in policies such as TPP, random "gifts" to the Clinton Foundation such as the $1,000,000 from Qatar, etc.). Obviously not equal to Trump and many other candidates who ran for office, but that doesn't mean these things should have a blind eye turned toward them. I'm still voting for Hillary come November. Sheathe your sword. punk rebel ecks fucked around with this message at 03:49 on Oct 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 03:47
|
|
|
my sword has been folded over 1000 times, it cannot be held by mere leather and bad political opinions
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 04:19
|
|
|
hubris.height posted:my sword has been folded over 1000 times, it cannot be held by mere leather and bad political opinions I can't tell if this is a knock on me, Ur Getting Fatter, or both of us. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 05:10
|
|
|
Snowglobe of Doom posted:I really, really prefer the weighted preference system we have here in Australia because it means no genuine vote is wasted even if it's for a 3rd party which has no chance of achieving the majority and outright winning the election. You at least have a chance of the minor parties getting one or two seats in parliament or the senate and helping make sure the two major parties don't skew things too badly in their own favour. The senate's weird, though, and a bunch of the nutjobs come from the idea of above-the-line voting rather than the concept of the preferential system. For all the problems with Australian politics, it has to be said that Preferential Voting/Single Transferable Vote/Instant Runoff Voting/Alternative Vote/Whatever the gently caress you want to call it is amazingly better than first-past-the-post and would solve a lot of issues if implemented elsewhere.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 09:38
|
|
|
Ur Getting Fatter posted:What does this even mean? How do you go from "all the candidates are terrible" to "Hillary is good but shady? One, you move along the good-evil continuum away from evil towards good. Moving from -8 to -7 is an objective improvement. Two, you start to disincentiveize being evil. If Trump's shenanigans don't fail miserably, the next guy will try harder. If there's, say, a statistically significant upswing in voting this election, and the votes are mainly Hilldawg, that sends a clear message that Trumping it up fails so hard that apathetic voters bestir to get up and vote. Now, this is all theoretical, as the system is such an overall failure that if all really doesn't matter. Trump isn't running for president; he's advertising himself. Hilldawg isn't running for president; she's inheriting it in the dynastic war of the House of Bush and the House of Clinton, after a brief reign of Obama the Unlikely.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 13:10
|
|
|
MikeJF posted:The senate's weird, though, and a bunch of the nutjobs come from the idea of above-the-line voting rather than the concept of the preferential system. I think a big part of the issue in the US is voter apathy. Australia's mandatory voting means that people will actually care enough about their vote to push for better systems, since if it's something you HAVE to do then you might as well make it as comfortable as possible. It's hard to get people fired up about voting reform in the US since so many people just don't do it. Improving the system would probably help to make people care more but they also have to care for the system to be improved in the first place - it's a vicious cycle.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 15:04
|
|
|
I find it pretty telling that the US elections struggle to beat the EU parliament elections (which are the bottom mark of the west pretty much) in voter participation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 17:44
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:I can't tell if this is a knock on me, Ur Getting Fatter, or both of us. no one, just a funny reference to nerds and katana, calm down
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 18:07
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:I think a big part of the issue in the US is voter apathy. Australia's mandatory voting means that people will actually care enough about their vote to push for better systems, since if it's something you HAVE to do then you might as well make it as comfortable as possible. It's hard to get people fired up about voting reform in the US since so many people just don't do it. Improving the system would probably help to make people care more but they also have to care for the system to be improved in the first place - it's a vicious cycle. There were people venomously arguing against mandatory voting in the US Pol thread because they claimed that it actually made the working class even more unrepresented because they couldn't vote anyway because they have to work or something. And that Greece and Austria had it and it failed and stuff. Not sure how true it is.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:There were people venomously arguing against mandatory voting in the US Pol thread because they claimed that it actually made the working class even more unrepresented because they couldn't vote anyway because they have to work or something. And that Greece and Austria had it and it failed and stuff. Not sure how true it is. There's people that can't afford to leave work to drive whatever amount of hours to and back a polling place. Or maybe they don't have a car. Maybe they don't have a proper ID because their state doesn't supply one unless they pay some X amount of money that they also can't afford. Many states also don't allow mail-in voting unless you fit some restrictive criteria. Mandatory voting for those people (usually low income minorities) essentially entails a punishment for being poor. Fix those things, then sure, institute mandatory voting, whatever.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 20:34
|
|
|
Mandatory voting doesn't get rid of voter apathy though. It just makes the apathetic voters vote regardless of whether they care who wins or know anything about any of the candidates. And then you get joke candidates who would probably do a terrible job campaigning and standing to get a significant proportion of the vote. Nobody wants a rhinoceros getting elected. Relevant
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 20:59
|
|
|
Election day should be a national holiday or at least held on a Sunday with plenty of early voting, mail in voting, online voting, etc. Then you could make it mandatory. Otherwise it ends up being a tax on the poor. But those other measures should be done regardless. The second Tuesday of november is some arcane bullshit from an agrarian economy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 21:28
|
|
|
IRQ posted:Election day should be a national holiday or at least held on a Sunday Wait, it's not? Why is it not a holiday (or Sunday/Saturday)? What kind of argument could anyone possibly have against this?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
Rexides posted:Wait, it's not? Why is it not a holiday (or Sunday/Saturday)? What kind of argument could anyone possibly have against this? Then the poors can vote and they're more likely to vote democrat.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 21:44
|
|
|
Rexides posted:Wait, it's not? Why is it not a holiday (or Sunday/Saturday)? What kind of argument could anyone possibly have against this? Because it's written into the Constitution. Amendments require the vote of 2/3 of each of the legislatures to go through, and I believe the president has to sign off on it to boot. I may have fudged the details (mobile, been a while since high school civics), but the point is amending the Constitution is ludicrously difficult. For something like this, it's a non-starter since the current system got all those people into power in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
Rexides posted:Wait, it's not? Why is it not a holiday (or Sunday/Saturday)? What kind of argument could anyone possibly have against this? You also aren't necessarily legally entitled to take off work, it depends by state. And if you're hourly, welp, too bad for you even if you can! The reason is that poors/minorities are more likely to have trouble getting to the polls on a work day, and they either do or are perceived to vote democrat more often so the republicans fight any expanded voting tooth and nail.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
Absentee voting is available to all Americans eligible to vote last I checked. I mean, you DO need a mailing address of some sort, maybe a stamp? I gotta look at my ballot, but I don't even think you need that. It also leaves a nice paper trail, while sidestepping dirty tricks like hidden polling places. Vote absentee.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 23:20
|
|
|
Solvent posted:Absentee voting is available to all Americans eligible to vote last I checked. I mean, you DO need a mailing address of some sort, maybe a stamp? I gotta look at my ballot, but I don't even think you need that. It also leaves a nice paper trail, while sidestepping dirty tricks like hidden polling places. Most of the southern poor states (and some of the others too) only have "Excuse required" absentee voting, so "I don't want to go down the street to vote" and "I have to work" aren't valid reasons to mail in a vote, it's more like "I'll be in Vietnam in November"
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 23:25
|
|
|
Azhais posted:Most of the southern poor states (and some of the others too) only have "Excuse required" absentee voting, so "I don't want to go down the street to vote" and "I have to work" aren't valid reasons to mail in a vote, it's more like "I'll be in Vietnam in November" This kind of breaks my heart. I get absentee materials in the mail whether or not I asked for them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 23:35
|
|
|
Rexides posted:Wait, it's not? Why is it not a holiday (or Sunday/Saturday)? What kind of argument could anyone possibly have against this? Having it on Tuesday means the farmers can come into town on Monday, vote, then head back out on Wednesday. This couldn't happen on the weekend because it means they would be on their way back on Sunday when they should be in church. E: just to be clear, this is not a joke. Azhais posted:Most of the southern poor states (and some of the others too) only have "Excuse required" absentee voting, so "I don't want to go down the street to vote" and "I have to work" aren't valid reasons to mail in a vote, it's more like "I'll be in Vietnam in November" Speaking for Virginia, you can only absentee vote IF you are: - Not in your county or city on Election Day, Nov 8, because of work, vacation, or personal reasons - A member of US Armed Forces or the spouse or dependent of a member and won’t be in your county or city on Election Day - A student or the spouse of a student attending school outside your county or city on Election Day - Disabled, sick, or pregnant - In jail on Nov 5 or later either 1) awaiting trial or 2) for a misdemeanor conviction - A member of an electoral board, registrar, officer of election, or custodian of voting equipment - Primarily responsible for taking care of a sick or disabled family member confined at home - Under a religious obligation - Working a required shift of 11 or more hours during the time your voting location is open - A law-enforcement officer, firefighter, volunteer firefighter, search and rescue personnel, or emergency medical services personnel - An official partisan poll watcher - Temporarily living outside of US - Temporarily living outside the US for work or the spouse or dependent living outside the US with employee - No longer a resident of Virginia but moved less than 30 days before the presidential election and are requesting a ballot to vote for President and Vice President only. Note that 'It's more convenient' is not an option. NmareBfly fucked around with this message at 23:46 on Oct 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 23:42
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:I think a big part of the issue in the US is voter apathy. Is it really apathy though, when a great many people don't vote simply because they think their vote won't matter, or that they won't be represented with way; that's far more in line with voter suppression.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 23:46
|
|
|
Propaganda Machine posted:This kind of breaks my heart. I get absentee materials in the mail whether or not I asked for them. A few states are like that. I think here in Minnesota if I didn't want to go the literal 1/4 mile to my polling place all I need to do is request a ballot (and I can do that entirely online), but that's the extent of the barrier to absentee vote. I've never actually bothered because it's super trivial for me to walk over and vote
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 23:57
|
|
|
If you request an absentee ballot they don't actually make you prove the reason you need one, so you can just say you will be out of town and get one.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 00:00
|
|
|
swickles posted:If you request an absentee ballot they don't actually make you prove the reason you need one, so you can just say you will be out of town and get one. This is true and I don't think anyone has been prosecuted or had a vote dumped because they lied about having a sick mom at home or anything but having to flirt with voter fraud in order to put in an absentee ballot is.. pretty lovely. I door-knocked for Obama and we were told straight out to tell people this (just say you're working that day and need a ballot!) and it always struck me as really shady. Like, I 100% totally agree in principle that early voting is great but lying on related paperwork is pretty bad form. 
NmareBfly fucked around with this message at 03:00 on Oct 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 00:09
|
|
|
NmareBfly posted:
You could pick like half of those as a reason if you wanted to and its not like they would verify it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 00:18
|
|
|
Is mandatory voting truly shown to get better results than participatory voting?Ur Getting Fatter posted:There's people that can't afford to leave work to drive whatever amount of hours to and back a polling place. Or maybe they don't have a car. Maybe they don't have a proper ID because their state doesn't supply one unless they pay some X amount of money that they also can't afford. How would you remedy fixing those things?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 00:45
|
|
|
Have voting be a holiday or on a Saturday/Sunday like has been mentioned maybe half a dozen times on this page alone. "Can't afford to leave work" suddenly matters a lot less when it's a holiday! It'll still matter to the service industry, of course, but usually working holidays is extra pay (in retail, at least), so it's a win-win.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 00:51
|
|
|
Most businesses wouldn't give a poo poo about election day being a hospital. No restaurant I've ever worked for would close for the day.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 01:02
|
|
|
They would if it were mandatory, or if it were mandatory to schedule shifts such that everyone could vote.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 01:05
|
|
|
Man, it's like you totally skipped the part where I specifically mentioned that the service industry would still have issues, but there'd still be a win-win with more voter availability in other sectors and (in several parts of the service sector) holiday pay. Perfect? Of course not. Better? Of course. You don't have to figure out the perfect solution in order to change things for the better.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 01:08
|
|
|
Azhais posted:A few states are like that. I think here in Minnesota if I didn't want to go the literal 1/4 mile to my polling place all I need to do is request a ballot (and I can do that entirely online), but that's the extent of the barrier to absentee vote. I've never actually bothered because it's super trivial for me to walk over and vote We're loving baller when it comes to voting. You can register at the polling place the day of!
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 01:08
|
|
|
Strobe posted:You don't have to figure out the perfect solution in order to change things for the better. Tell that to the climate change thread! Disregarding mandatory voting, absentee voting or business being required to accommodate people voting has to be a thing right? I guess we as a country don't actually give a poo poo about the person working two jobs with actually no time to vote. They're only good for racking up support in big speeches!
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 01:13
|
|
|
swickles posted:If you request an absentee ballot they don't actually make you prove the reason you need one, so you can just say you will be out of town and get one. Sure but absentee ballots aren't actually counted unless you run into a "results so close it's recount" situation so congrats on wasting your time I guess. I don't feel that voting absentee is actually a good alternative to just having early/mail/online voting available. Probably not enough people do it to make a difference, but if they did, nobody would ever know.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 01:14
|
|
|
its no big deal posted:Tell that to the climate change thread! Depends on the state laws and regardless if you're hourly lol you just lost half a day+ of pay if the lines are long or the buses are running slow.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 01:16
|
|
|
IRQ posted:Depends on the state laws and regardless if you're hourly lol you just lost half a day+ of pay if the lines are long or the buses are running slow. As an hourly worker about to lose my standard Tuesday as my day off, I'm glad I can vote early. In fact, I just got my ballot today! The joy of seeing Hilldawwwgs name first was palpable.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 01:18
|
|
|
The biggest advantage of mandatory voting is that it forces the government to put infrastructure in place that allows everybody to vote. You don't get four hour lines because the location and size of booths is determined by the population density of the area it is allocated to. Other initiatives such as pre polling and postal voting means that there are other options available. It's more of a positive obligation for the government to make sure everyone can vote, rather than a negative obligation on the voters to be forced to vote.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 01:56
|
|
|
That's how it happened in Australia (it's ridiculously easy to vote here as a result, and any government that hosed it up would lose votes as a consequence), but I bet America would manage to turn it into a poor person tax instead. It's not really relevant. American would never do it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 02:18
|
|
|
IRQ posted:I don't feel that voting absentee is actually a good alternative to just having early/mail/online voting available. Probably not enough people do it to make a difference, but if they did, nobody would ever know. In St. Louis, the local primary elections were affected by blatantly fraudulent absentee votes, because one St. Louis family that's neck-deep in city politics (the Hubbard family) decided that the best way to ensure victory was to, well, fill out people's absentee ballots for them. Among other things. And in at least two cases, the courts decided that it was enough to actually swing the election; one special election has already been held (with the challenger to the crooked incumbent easily defeated), and another is likely. Here is the best article on the issue; it paints the best picture of how the Hubbards stole this past primary election, and perhaps others, using absentee ballots. Now, this is the kind of thing that is more likely to affect things on a local, or maybe a state, level. But it is something that can swing an election for at least a local or state level.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 02:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 02:57 |
|
|
Ur Getting Fatter posted:Who is this mythical voter that has informed itself enough about Hillary's policies to declare them "as bad as Trump's" but also looked at Stein/Johnson's candidacies and not concluded they are absolute garbage? You and people like you keep trying to guilt people unto voting for a person and a party they don't loving like. Your indignation is unearned and you are convincing nobody. If hillary fails to trump of all people, its because shes a garbage candidate. If she gets blocked like gore in 2000 by third party votes, thats on every idiot democrat from the lowly voter that frankly had no real say in Clinton's coronation all the way to her top donors and senior dnc staff that did everything they could to install her. Leftists dont owe you or any other centrist their unwavering support for candidates with a storied history of undermining and working against true leftist ideals. Trump's a garbage fire. Clinton's a garbage fire, you do yourself no favors by demanding anybody play ball by feeding the fire. Stein has issues but i would loving take her over a dnc candidate any day. The only thing you're right about is that third parties need to focus on legislative seats instead of waiting every four years to make a scene about presidential politics. There are plenty of areas where greens and libertarians are strong enough to weaken dems and republicans legislatively, which is where it starts. Its how republicans began to usurp tge whigs. Their limited resources need to go there, not using presidential elections to whine about an unfair system.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 03:27
|
|
