US Politics: Is Obama Yossarian

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

I still don't like the idea of forcing people to vote. For me, if I want to write someone in, the process is a pain in the ass. If someone wants to spoil the people building the ballots can make the process difficult and encourage them to vote major party by default.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

I am totally digging this post. I think there's a tendency amongst many to confuse a lack of interest in politics with stupidity, and it ticks me off. For example, female Republican candidates do worse with female voters than do male Democrats, because women know that Democrats are better on women's issues than Republicans -- even female Republicans. African Americans vote largely Democratic no matter how many black candidates are paraded on stage at the RNC because they know Republicans are terrible on the issues they care about. Women are not stupid. Black people are not stupid. Americans are not stupid, and as such they need to be not only entrusted with the vote, but encouraged and assisted in participating in the democratic process.

This is self-congratulatory nonsense. The first issue is conflating presidential election results (where these trends, especially the trend of women voting for Democrats) is most pronounced with elections in general. But even looking at just the most recent presidential election.

Nationwide, 55% of women who voted did so for Obama, and only 44% of women who voted did so for Mitt Romney. Are 44% of women voters "stupid" because they voted for someone who is 'objectively worse' on "women's issues." Do women only vote based on a candidate's position on women's issues? Do women ever disagree on women's issues - for example, on abortion? (Answer: of course they do)

Nationwide, 52% of men who voted did so for Romney, and 45% of men who voted did so for Obama. Are you and I stupid because we voted for a candidate that is worse on "men's issues"? Was Romney better on "men's issues?" What are men's issues? Did we perhaps base our decisions on things other than "men's issues?"

[lokisnow]

Given the comically poor engagement of the public with information, I am not sure we want compulsory voting.

And the best way to increase engagement and increase the amount of informed voters is to rescend all the progressive era reforms that put elections on off years in [insert random month here].

Two elections every two years is what we need, on even numbered years.

Primaries in May, General in November. No more, no less.

Los Angeles has had six or seven elections this year alone, and it's not even an odd numbered year when we have a couple dozen useless elections mostly with one issue on the ballot or only four candidates, it's absurd.

This plethora of tiny elections is stupid and results in low participation. Consolidate elections into as few election days as possible and put local elections on the same ballot as national and state elections. Voter interest, Voter participation, and the number of informed voters will all Skyrocket.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Hell, I'd do away with primaries. If the parties want open participation of the public when they select who they want to run let them pay for the primaries.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

Hell, I'd do away with primaries. If the parties want open participation of the public when they select who they want to run let them pay for the primaries.

I agree with you, though not on the basis of cost. I'd love to see the parties more empowered to enforce ideological agreement, allowing the voters a more clear expectation of outcomes when they vote for a party's candidate. So that when, say, a party wins a huge majority in the House of Representatives and Senate while also winning the Presidency we don't have to spend a year debating the healthcare policy the party standard bearer just ran an exhaustive campaign on and won with.

[TrackerNeil]

This plethora of tiny elections is stupid and results in low participation. Consolidate elections into as few election days as possible and put local elections on the same ballot as national and state elections. Voter interest, Voter participation, and the number of informed voters will all Skyrocket.

I agree with this. It's hard enough to get people out to vote without pestering them twice a year. Of course, part of that difficulty are all of the stupid barriers we place before voting (ID laws, Tuesday voting, etc.), but that's a different issue I suppose.

[Horza]

The Conservative Crush on the Barechested One - Case File #3502

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Horza,

Good grief. No one should want Putin in charge for any length of time. Mainly, because that length of time is liklely to be longer than expected.

[L.T.'s Sexual Healing]

I still don't like the idea of forcing people to vote. For me, if I want to write someone in, the process is a pain in the ass. If someone wants to spoil the people building the ballots can make the process difficult and encourage them to vote major party by default.

The idea makes third parties much for viable though. And if you factored in run off elections if a certain threshold isn't met, well, you can make it a pretty workable system.

[L.T.'s Sexual Healing]

The Conservative Crush on the Barechested One - Case File #3502

Horza,

Good grief. No one should want Putin in charge for any length of time. Mainly, because that length of time is liklely to be longer than expected.

If Putin ran things everywhere, I'd bet that 9 in 10 people on this forum would disappear.

[Wee baby Shamus]

If Putin ran things everywhere, I'd bet that 9 in 10 people on this forum would disappear.

Agreed.

[Horza]

Horza,

Good grief. No one should want Putin in charge for any length of time. Mainly, because that length of time is liklely to be longer than expected.

Rest of the video is pretty good too: conservatives in favour of overturning ancient principles of common law because TERROR!, mocking climate change as less serious than a few thousand murderous bozos and the masterstroke: "Nice is death!"

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Horza,

Again, the incredible willingness of any group trade significant freedoms for a little security always amazes me.

[L.T.'s Sexual Healing]

Rest of the video is pretty good too: conservatives in favour of overturning ancient principles of common law because TERROR!, mocking climate change as less serious than a few thousand murderous bozos and the masterstroke: "Nice is death!"

According to W, it's pronounced "tear"

[TerraPrime]

Dixie Chicks apologizing for W. Bush to foreigners is treasonous, according to the conservatives.

Signing up to the ICC betrays U.S. sovereignty, according to the conservatives.

Allowing persecuted children fleeing near-certain death to stay in our country is un-American, according to the conservatives.

But hey, requesting a foreigner to take over our country is perfectly fine, according to conservatives.

Can you imagine the total amount of histrionics we would have witnessed if Chris Mathews had said during the W. Bush years that he wished President Hu form China would come and sort out the invasion in Iraq mess? He would be getting death threats.

[Inigima]

And it's Putin they want? Aren't they still pissing themselves about communism? Amazing that the love for authoritarianism can overcome even that.

[TrackerNeil]

And it's Putin they want? Aren't they still pissing themselves about communism? Amazing that the love for authoritarianism can overcome even that.

In my view, conservatives are defined, in part, by a respect for authority figures. They like the image of big, tough guys who take no guff and stand up against Evil -- remember this one? The only authority figures they don't like are liberals, whom they see as weak and puling, except of course when they are not being rapacious tyrants.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Tracker,

Not everyone on the right side of the aisle is obsessed with respect for authority. Tormund and I for example. Rand Paul is not particularly fond of Government overreach and has been speaking out against the high Black prison population and police abuse of power.

Never forget there are those to the left who think the solutions to many problems is to give government even more power than it already has. Consider whether you want government super-empowered when the pendulum shifts and those authoritarian rightists who you decry take the reigns.

[TrackerNeil]

Tracker,

Not everyone on the right side of the aisle is obsessed with respect for authority. Tormund and I for example. Rand Paul is not particularly fond of Government overreach and has been speaking out against the high Black prison population and police abuse of power.

I think that all conservatives share three things: sympathy with privilege, reverence for authority, and suspicion of intellectualism. You are a bit more libertarian than many conservatives, so I don't think that maps so well to you.

[aceluby]

Tracker,

Not everyone on the right side of the aisle is obsessed with respect for authority. Tormund and I for example. Rand Paul is not particularly fond of Government overreach and has been speaking out against the high Black prison population and police abuse of power.

Never forget there are those to the left who think the solutions to many problems is to give government even more power than it already has. Consider whether you want government super-empowered when the pendulum shifts and those authoritarian rightists who you decry take the reigns.

This is a completely false equivalence. Saying that the govt has the tools to solve certain societal problems, such as regulating healthcare costs through a single payer system, has absolutely nothing to do with police abuse of power or that they should be given more power. Just because you think the govt can do things better than the private sector (healthcare, prisons, internet, etc...) does not mean you want it enforced with jackbooted thugs bursting into your house with guns. Two separate issues.