US Elections: Super Tuesday Edition, It's Over 9000!

[Kalbear]

It speaks to all of it if you read the whole thing.

[Fragile Bird]

8 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

 

Kasich just successfully defunded planned parenthood.

He is hardly moderate.

You know, it's funny, you think you finally see a reasonable Republican and he turns out to be shithead after all.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

Just now, Kalbear said:

It speaks to all of it if you read the whole thing.

The whole book? Have you read it, or did it just turn up for you when you searched google?

I read that entire page. Compulsory voting doesn't come up. Then I searched the book for the word 'compulsory'- no results found.

[Kalbear]

It talks about the voting system in australia and gave an example.

Here's another article about Australia that probably won't satisfy you either but I found interesting. Basically despite compulsory voting people are disillusioned and are voting for candidates not because they think they'll do well, but because they think they'll destroy the system.

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-11/poll-data-reveals-waning-interest-in-politics/5662568

And here's another, though I can't find a link to the full thing on my phone. The abstract hints at it though, indicating that more popular candidates do better.

https://repository.uwa.edu.au/R/-?func=dbin-jump-full&object_id=34704&local_base=GEN01-INS01

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

9 minutes ago, Notone said:

No, not necessarily. My guess is, he now tries to win the General Election for his party in the Democratic primaries. And he does that by damaging the candidate he deems most dangerous. Clinton loses to Sanders: he got rid off the main competition. Clinton narrowly defeats Sanders, she has been under fire for way longer than the general election cycle and has potentially taken damage. 

Apparently putting lip stick worth some hundreds of millions of dollars on a pig wasn't enough to make said barn animal electable enough, so he tries to smear the opposition early on. The thing he was/is kinda good at. His smearing campaign against Kerry worked quite well. 

I certainly understand the theory behind Rove's actions - just as I understood the theory behind his Super Pac's ads in the 2004 and 2008 elections against Obama as well. I just question the efficacy. 

[alguien]

Did anyone watch the Dem town hall debate last night?

I checked the highlights this morning, and both Hillary and Bernie seemed to acquit themselves pretty well. Was curious to see if anyone watched the whole thing and had any impressions. 

I'm trying to focus on them, rather than let my brain get bogged down in the depressing idea that Donald "I-love-the-poorly-educated" Trump's race-baiting may win him a primary. 

[OnionAhaiReborn]

36 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

It talks about the voting system in australia and gave an example.

It talks about Australia because Australia uses single-member districts for its House of Representatives. We use single-member districts too. It does not talk about compulsory voting having the effect helping candidates with high name recognition to win.

 

Quote

Here's another article about Australia that probably won't satisfy you either but I found interesting. Basically despite compulsory voting people are disillusioned and are voting for candidates not because they think they'll do well, but because they think they'll destroy the system.

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-11/poll-data-reveals-waning-interest-in-politics/5662568

 

 

Yes, this article is interesting. No, it doesn't satisfy my request for a source on the claim that compulsory voting favors candidates with high name recognition. It's increasingly clear that you cannot provide a source for this claim.

 

And here's another, though I can't find a link to the full thing on my phone. The abstract hints at it though, indicating that more popular candidates do better.

https://repository.uwa.edu.au/R/-?func=dbin-jump-full&object_id=34704&local_base=GEN01-INS01

This abstract says nothing about name recognition.

[Kalbear]

I've tried, OAR. It really isn't that important, one way or another. I read a lot, and I'm sorry that my google fu cant find a scholarly article up to your standards.

If you like I'll change it to say that Trump would be favored in compulsory election systems because he's a more popular candidate.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

5 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I've tried, OAR. It really isn't that important, one way or another. I read a lot, and I'm sorry that my google fu cant find a scholarly article up to your standards.

If you like I'll change it to say that Trump would be favored in compulsory election systems because he's a more popular candidate.

It's not about living up to my standards, it's about you failing to provide anything that even remotely addresses your claim. This is as plain as day to me, and, I hope, everyone observing this exchange.

As for Trump doing better because he is a more popular candidate... if this is the case (I don't believe it is), so be it. That's how democracy should work. I'll note, though, that I began this conversation by providing a source that says, in fact, the effect of compulsory voting is to favor leftist, redistributive policy. So the only evidence actually presented in this thread suggests the opposite of even your revised claim.

[Kalbear]

Well, the Australia pm voted in prior to this year was absurdly rightist. Like, crazy so. That's kind of evidence to the contrary, no?

And you feel that democracy should elect the person that people like the most? That it should be a popularity contest? Interesting. I've felt that it isn't about whether you like the person or not but whether or not they would do a good job as president. That's what that article was indicating - that it wasn't about the best for the job or the most qualified but instead was the most popular. And that was what we saw with the recent cocknobble PM Australia just ousted.

[Altherion]

There's an article on Salon that expresses my point of view in a better way that I've managed to so far:

Quote

 

There’s no official definition of the “establishment” but it presumably includes all of the people and institutions that have wielded significant power over the American political economy, and are therefore deemed complicit.

At its core are the major corporations, their top executives, and Washington lobbyists and trade associations; the biggest Wall Street banks, their top officers, traders, hedge-fund and private-equity managers, and their lackeys in Washington; the billionaires who invest directly in politics; and the political leaders of both parties, their political operatives, and fundraisers.

...

The establishment is having conniptions. They call Trump whacky and Sanders irresponsible. They charge that Trump’s isolationism and Bernie’s ambitious government programs will stymie economic growth.

The establishment doesn’t get that most Americans couldn’t care less about economic growth because for years they’ve got few of its benefits, while suffering most of its burdens in the forms of lost jobs and lower wages.

 

In fact, even if neither Trump nor Sanders are elected or one of them is elected and fails to accomplish anything, this issue is not going to go away.

[Jaxom 1974]

53 minutes ago, alguien said:

Did anyone watch the Dem town hall debate last night?

I checked the highlights this morning, and both Hillary and Bernie seemed to acquit themselves pretty well. Was curious to see if anyone watched the whole thing and had any impressions. 

I'm trying to focus on them, rather than let my brain get bogged down in the depressing idea that Donald "I-love-the-poorly-educated" Trump's race-baiting may win him a primary. 

There was a Democratic Town Hall Debate last night?  I mean I know I've been busy this week, but I did not know there was such a thing last night.  I would have at least checked it out a little.

 

Also, why does it seem as though this resignation of Donald Trump as the presumptive Republican nominee is leading to a lot of resignation in line with, "He won't be as bad as Cruz or Rubio"? Of course he'll be just as bad.  It doesn't matter if he pivots and suddenly is all kinds of moderate once he's the candidate.  He's lied, he's smeared, he's promoted racism and xenophobia.  Folks cannot begin to resign themselves to the idea that he's the nominee and he might actually be President.  To go that way lies madness. 

 

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

It's a logical conclusion. Those who wouldn't vote in a non compulsory election are more likely to be low information or apathetic voters, who then vote more based on name recognition.

It would be hard to test, and even if there was a study or two that disputed it, the logic behind it is so strong, that, from a Bayesian perspective, I'd be more inclined to think there was something wrong with the study.

[alguien]

6 minutes ago, Jaxom 1974 said:

There was a Democratic Town Hall Debate last night?  I mean I know I've been busy this week, but I did not know there was such a thing last night.  I would have at least checked it out a little.

 

Also, why does it seem as though this resignation of Donald Trump as the presumptive Republican nominee is leading to a lot of resignation in line with, "He won't be as bad as Cruz or Rubio"? Of course he'll be just as bad.  It doesn't matter if he pivots and suddenly is all kinds of moderate once he's the candidate.  He's lied, he's smeared, he's promoted racism and xenophobia.  Folks cannot begin to resign themselves to the idea that he's the nominee and he might actually be President.  To go that way lies madness. 

 

I think it didn't get as much coverage since Trump won Nevada and the media has been in a spin-tizzy on how to cover it. 

I agree that Trump would be just as bad as either Cruz or Rubio, if not worse. And I still believe there's no chance he becomes president, because there are so many who'd vote for an opposing candidate just to avoid it. It's just saddens me that reality-show assholishness seasoned with racism and fear-mongering is still a formula for political success with so many idiots. 

[Kalbear]

4 minutes ago, White Walker Texas Ranger said:

It's a logical conclusion. Those who wouldn't vote in a non compulsory election are more likely to be low information or apathetic voters, who then vote more based on name recognition.

It would be hard to test, and even if there was a study or two that disputed it, the logic behind it is so strong, that, from a Bayesian perspective, I'd be more inclined to think there was something wrong with the study.

Exactly, though it's not  impossible to test - and point of fact one of the articles I linked had the abstract that the more popular candidate is favored over party ideology, which goes exactly into this line of thinking. Same with  Abbott being the PM of Australia - as far as I can tell it was because he was a very popular guy with some really outspoken things to say that made him very newsworthy, but it wasn't because he was particularly competent and was definitely not because he was left-leaning. He was against gays, against women, against immigration, very pro-church, ran triathalons, and didn't vote on a budget bill because he was passed out drunk in his office. He ended up getting ousted not because of a popular vote, but because of a parliamentary vote in his own party. 

(an aside: it's awesome how the Right-leaning party in Australia is the Liberal party.)

As to compulsory voting - in the US, I think that it's likely true it would help any democratic candidate, period. But it's not clear that this is because it favors left-leaning policies or because the poor or lower-information voters tend to be supportive of the left. As Trump is showing right now lower-information voters with poor education are lining up to support him, and a lot of that likely has to do with his popularity and name recognition. It may simply have to do a lot more with the specific demographics in the US. When there was a lot more popular voting instead of party-line voting we saw things like the Reagan/Mondale split. 

[OnionAhaiReborn]

24 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

 

Well, the Australia pm voted in prior to this year was absurdly rightist. Like, crazy so. That's kind of evidence to the contrary, no?

 

No. Compulsory system can favor left-wing candidates relative to low-turnout environments without being absolutely determinative in all cases. ie- Labor can lose elections because of the political climate that it would likely have lost even worse in a low-turnout environment.

 

Quote

And you feel that democracy should elect the person that people like the most? That it should be a popularity contest? Interesting. I've felt that it isn't about whether you like the person or not but whether or not they would do a good job as president. That's what that article was indicating - that it wasn't about the best for the job or the most qualified but instead was the most popular. And that was what we saw with the recent cocknobble PM Australia just ousted.

 

'Popular' is not synonymous with 'likable.'

I feel in a democracy candidates should be chosen by popular vote, I'm not interested in policing on what basis the candidate is popular, which I'm sure is different depending on the voter- it could be down to policy, competence, identity politics, or, yes, even likability. What's important to me is a democratic system of choosing, under which, logically, the most popular choice must win.

18 minutes ago, White Walker Texas Ranger said:

It's a logical conclusion. Those who wouldn't vote in a non compulsory election are more likely to be low information or apathetic voters, who then vote more based on name recognition.

It would be hard to test, and even if there was a study or two that disputed it, the logic behind it is so strong, that, from a Bayesian perspective, I'd be more inclined to think there was something wrong with the study.

It is not a "logical conclusion," it's an assumption. An assumption you are apparently so committed to that you're prepared to ignore any evidence to the contrary.

You might instead consider the actual evidence which suggests that apathetic, non-voters have a preference not for names they recognize, but for redistributive policy.

[Kalbear]

20 minutes ago, Jaxom 1974 said:

Also, why does it seem as though this resignation of He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named as the presumptive Republican nominee is leading to a lot of resignation in line with, "He won't be as bad as Cruz or Rubio"? Of course he'll be just as bad.  It doesn't matter if he pivots and suddenly is all kinds of moderate once he's the candidate.  He's lied, he's smeared, he's promoted racism and xenophobia.  Folks cannot begin to resign themselves to the idea that he's the nominee and he might actually be President.  To go that way lies madness. 

 

I don't think he'll be as bad. He isn't nearly as gung ho on bombing the fuck out of random countries just because. He isn't as against some kind of medical system. I think that he needs to be fought because he's promoting racist ideologies (as witnessed by his massive support from white supremacists and that 20% of Trump supporters wish we could have slavery back), has zero actual governing ability and has no policy considerations at all. I think Cruz would be far worse, for instance, due to all of the above + his desire to bomb the hell out of some random countries. I think Rubio would likely be as bad because of his bizarre malfunctioning, hesitation, and his desire to show how much of a tough guy he is.

Make no mistake - I think any of the Republican candidates would be a massive disaster. I think Trump would be the least disastrous of the three, and in some ways would likely just be an incompetent do-nothing whose damage would simply be the repealing of most of what Obama did accomplish. But at least he wouldn't likely start any major wars. 

[Kalbear]

Quote

I feel in a democracy candidates should be chosen by popular vote, I'm not interested in policing on what basis the candidate is popular, which I'm sure is different depending on the voter- it could be down to policy, competence, identity politics, or, yes, even likability. What's important to me is a democratic system of choosing, under which, logically, the most popular choice must win.

Wow, really? You really want to just turn it into a beauty contest and don't care at all about electing someone who is a good ruler, but who can convince everyone that they should vote for them? Huh. That's super shocking given your leftist views. 

Parliamentary democracies don't work this way - are you completely against them, then?

Quote

You might instead consider the actual evidence which suggests that apathetic, non-voters have a preference not for names they recognize, but for redistributive policy.

Per your policy of quibbling,  the article you linked provides zero evidence that this is the case but simply states that this is the case. Do you have another source?

ETA:
 

Quote

It is not a "logical conclusion," it's an assumption. An assumption you are apparently so committed to that you're prepared to ignore any evidence to the contrary.

Per quibbling it absolutely is a logical conclusion. The premise is as follows:

a) those who don't vote in noncompulsory systems do not care as much and do not know as much about the election

b ) those who don't care as much will tend to vote for names they recognize 

Therefore

c) compulsory systems will more strongly favor those whose names are recognized.

It's perfect syllogistic logic. That you disagree with it is also fine (namely you're disagreeing with a premise) but it doesn't make it not logical. 

[IheartIheartTesla]

Trump has more than 50% chance of being the Republican nominee. Once that happens, he has less than a 50% chance of being President.

Also, I suspect voter turnout issues for the Democrats will go away once they see who the Republican nominee is.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 hours ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

If the U.S. Voted Like Australia, Bernie Sanders Would Have a Better Chance

 

 

This article focuses on compulsory voting, but I'd add that if we didn't have such a batshit crazy and undemocratic electoral system (featuring gerrymandering, first past the post , caucuses, the Senate, midterm and off year elections, the Electoral College) which makes it difficult for voters to reliably signal their issue preferences, see results, and feel that their vote matters, I think we'd see higher turnout without compelling anyone to vote. We could learn something from Australia's use of ranked choice voting, as well.

OAR,

Unless people are allowed force a new election with new candidates if a majority selects NOTA I hate the idea of compulsory voting.