|
Do you think Brian is going to come back to this thread if this thing reaches its goal? Maybe he'll do a dance.
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2014 02:24
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 00:28 |
|
|
God Bless America! 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2014 02:32
|
|
|
Berke Negri posted:Now Jack Abramoff can save the Union.  HackensackBackpack fucked around with this message at 04:23 on Jul 5, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2014 03:52
|
|
|
Samurai Quack posted:There really should be a public service announcement to remind morons that the 300 lost But the movie? The guy kicked the guy into the pit and yelled? Fight in the shade?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2014 07:27
|
|
|
Quantum Mechanic posted:If you're going to lobby for electoral reform you might as well shoot for PR, it's just as likely to happen and people support it more because it's simpler. British Columbia and the UK both had referenda on preferential voting and it lost because it's too easy to attack and present as being complicated and destructive. Ontario had a vote on Mixed Member Proportional in 2007 and it lost spectacularly, with only about 36% of the overall vote, and only 5 of the 107 districts had a majority of votes in favour of it. Almost all of the major media editorials were opposed to it as well. You can sabre-rattle for electoral reform but there are many powerful, and deeply entrenched interests for whom the status quo is working just fine, and they'll fight to defend it.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2014 10:30
|
|
|
Quantum Mechanic posted:On the other hand, NZ not only adopted MMP in a referendum, they kept it with a second one. Not only that, but the timing of most discussions on electoral reform is usually right after an election, so it's very easy to paint the advocates as sore losers. Ontario's referendum on it came on the same day as the general election, so it was prepared in advance, but as I said, it was soundly defeated. However, I still don't think a change in how the people in power get picked would really do much to alter a culture that has become inherently toxic, especially in the U.S. where the sheer amount of money changing hands has way more to do with what happens than the box the voters tick every couple of years. The ultrarich are still going to have a much greater amount of influence in a system were money is speech.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2014 05:49
|
|
|
Mister Fister posted:I mean, if they could upset a couple of incumbents, i think that's a win in my book. If that tea party guy could upset Eric Cantor with almost no resources, i don't see why Lessig et al couldn't do something similar. It's also not just about the process of getting them into office, it's all the things that go on once they're in. The "money in politics" isn't just in electoral campaign finance, but in lobbying as well. 20% of Americans own more than 50% of the wealth. The top 1% own over 37%; more than a third of the wealth of the country is held in the hands of 1% of its citizens. Five million dollars is coffee money to those guys. The Koch brothers as an example, two guys, are worth a collective $100 billion. The median family net worth, if I'm reading Wikipedia right, is around $109,000. You'd need the total net wealth of 917,431 families at the median, to match the net wealth of Charles and David Koch, which, I remind you again, are two individuals.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2014 19:56
|
|
|
OMGVBFLOL posted:Any hope that this wasn't a complete loving scam evaporated when his name showed up. Jack Abramoff would steal the dollars off a corpse's eyes. The ferryman thinks he's such a hotshot with his monopoly on plying the Styx. WELL WE'LL SEE ABOUT THAT!
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2014 20:15
|
|
|
Wait, if Liberals are so ineffective, how is it they control the media and the school system up to and including university?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2014 02:46
|
|
|
Samurai Quack posted:
Are there not advance polls in U.S. elections? The last election we had in Ontario had polls open at multiple locations every day for a full week, a week before the actual election day. The one before that had ten days of advance polling.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2014 06:34
|
|
|
fermun posted:Each state runs their own election that has to at least meet minimum standards, but every state is very slightly different. Here in Colorado you get a ballot in the mail 30 days before the election day and have that full time to fill it out and either mail it in or drop it off at the polling location, or you can go to the polling location to do the vote in person instead. Samurai Quack posted:From what I understand (and what Fermun said) it's a crap shoot from state to state as to how progressive the voting standars are, but the GOP had been moving to restrict early voting in several states as part of their disenfranchisement campaigns. I still can't believe that in America the Free, there are people who are actively trying to stymie the vote, of all things. The thing that "people fought and died for." People say that. People fought and died for your right to vote. And yet some of the people in power are trying to make it harder to do that one thing, one of the few times where everyone is genuinely supposed to be equal. As long as you're 18, it doesn't matter how rich or poor you are, if you're sick or healthy, no matter your race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, everyone gets one vote. What kind of work do you have cut out for you in that one? In at least making voting as accessible as possible? How much money do you need for that? 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2014 07:17
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 00:28 |
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Well, there are some criticisms of early voting specifically in that the sample of population opinion is spread out over time, inviting certain forms of manipulation, abuse or plain old absurd outcomes if the practice becomes too universal. I'd really prefer a federal mandate that election day be a national holiday and that the US employ a stricter version of Australia et al.'s voting requirements. (not factoring in voting from abroad of course, but that's meant to address a different set of exigencies). You make good points. I was looking at it from the angle that, if you have several days of advance voting in multiple locations, it allows for a greater amount of chances for someone who may be working on Election Day to have a chance to get to a polling station. A national holiday would work, too, but I still would fear that certain industries that typically remain open on holidays (like food service) would remain open due to increased holiday business, and their employees would still have a difficult time getting to the polls. I'm not as familiar with Australia's rules, though I'm aware their vote is compulsory, but I would assume some privision to allow an employee time off to vote, or extended polling hours on election day would accompany a proposed U.S. national holiday.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2014 17:09
|
|