US Election: To NY and Beyond

[Tywin et al.]

42 minutes ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

Don't give up the hope! If the Republican Convention is 1/10th as stupid as it was in

  Reveal hidden contents

House of Cards

I cannot imagine missing it play out live.

Oh I want it to happen badly. Think of the possibilities:

• Zodiac killer Ted Cruz takes out Kasich for not getting out of the race when he was mathematically eliminated.
• Trump trying and failing to wrap his infantile hands around Reince Priebus' neck.
• Paul Ryan repeatedly saying he doesn't want to be the beauty queen while sneakily reaching out to grab the tiara. 
• The gun fights.
• The Trumpster fire that consumes all of Cleveland.

 

[The Marquis de Leech]

30 minutes ago, Notone said:

Sanders failed to make inroads among the black voters in the south. They went to Clinton. I am somewhat curious how the non-black poor vote split. Next question would be if those remaining votes are really leaning liberal/Democrat, I would not bet my money on it. 

Depends on the state.

A poor white person in Minnesota is much more likely to vote Democratic than a poor white person in Mississippi.

[aceluby]

30 minutes ago, Notone said:

I guess that economic variable might be tricky. If you look closer at it, you will imho find the following: 

First most of the poor are  three things: first they are (to a larger degree) non-white, second they are mainly from the south and finally they are probably less educated (at least the majority).

Sanders failed to make inroads among the black voters in the south. They went to Clinton. I am somewhat curious how the non-black poor vote split. Next question would be if those remaining votes are really leaning liberal/Democrat, I would not bet my money on it. 

Getting the poor to vote would favor the Democrats as a whole imo. But mainly because they tend to be black. 

Ummm.... no.  There are 8 MILLION more white poor people than black.

[Shryke]

46 minutes ago, Notone said:

I guess that economic variable might be tricky. If you look closer at it, you will imho find the following: 

First most of the poor are  three things: first they are (to a larger degree) non-white, second they are mainly from the south and finally they are probably less educated (at least the majority).

Sanders failed to make inroads among the black voters in the south. They went to Clinton. I am somewhat curious how the non-black poor vote split. Next question would be if those remaining votes are really leaning liberal/Democrat, I would not bet my money on it. 

Getting the poor to vote would favor the Democrats as a whole imo. But mainly because they tend to be black. 

The poor are disproportionately black, but that doesn't meant they aren't mostly white.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Sorry, I assumed that black minority has grown big enough, so that their poor outnumber the white poor by now. 

Reading that sentence again, it looks/sounds somewhat awkward, but I really can't phrase it any better. So I blame that on English not being my first language and hope that you cut me some slack here.

[DireWolfSpirit]

It doesn't seem fair to blame only the poor whites for Trump, many of his supporters are middle class and they shouldn't be excused for this abomination candidacy either.

Regarding earlier comments on mandatory voting, mandatory voting sounds too totalitarian for the U.S. We should retain the freedom to conscientously reject/object the ballot just like we can the military. To not vote is a civil liberty, you cannot force patriotism and imagine if you considered all the ballot choices apalling? Forceing a citizen to vote for one of them anyways seems egregiously unAmerican.

[Tywin et al.]

22 minutes ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

Regarding earlier comments on mandatory voting, mandatory voting sounds too totalitarian for the U.S. We should retain the freedom to conscientously reject/object the ballot just like we can the military. To not vote is a civil liberty, you cannot force patriotism and imagine if you considered all the ballot choices apalling? Forceing a citizen to vote for one of them anyways seems egregiously unAmerican.

There can be a none of the above option. And you could have a rule where if that option was the plurality opinion, that all the candidates get dumped and a new slate is proposed. 

[Kalbear]

Quote

Sanders failed to make inroads among the black voters in the south. They went to Clinton. I am somewhat curious how the non-black poor vote split. Next question would be if those remaining votes are really leaning liberal/Democrat, I would not bet my money on it. 

All poor people voted predominantly more for Clinton than Sanders, regardless of ethnicity. One reason that is interesting that you might not realize is that poor people tend to not be predominantly black - they tend to be predominantly women. 

As to Trump - while Trump did best among poorly educated and less affluent, he is winning in all demographics, period. 

On tonights democratic election: if things go even closely to what's predicted Sanders will need to win every race 65-35% from here on out to get a simple majority of the pledged. I'll figure out later what Clinton will need in order to clinch the election with pledged + supers. 

[DireWolfSpirit]

8 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

There can be a none of the above option. And you could have a rule where if that option was the plurality opinion, that all the candidates get dumped and a new slate is proposed. 

Geezus I just got a little excited at the thought of that, where do I check that box and can I do it twice? Lolololol

[Kalbear]

10 minutes ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

Geezus I just got a little excited at the thought of that, where do I check that box and can I do it twice? Lolololol

You would do it by voting for the candidates that support mandatory voting and support the candidates that want mandatory registration. 

[lokisnow]

48 minutes ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

It doesn't seem fair to blame only the poor whites for Trump, many of his supporters are middle class and they shouldn't be excused for this abomination candidacy either.

Regarding earlier comments on mandatory voting, mandatory voting sounds too totalitarian for the U.S. We should retain the freedom to conscientously reject/object the ballot just like we can the military. To not vote is a civil liberty, you cannot force patriotism and imagine if you considered all the ballot choices apalling? Forceing a citizen to vote for one of them anyways seems egregiously unAmerican.

iirc, I think mandatory voting is a tax filing thing, like the option to donate $2 to public funding or the "did you have health insurance" question. 

So you state you voted in that year's federal elections and your taxes owed do not go up by $200 for example. If you state you did not vote, your taxes owed goes up by $200.

(I picked $200 because that is one day's wages (1000/wk) if you are making approximately the median wage of 50,000/yr and the biggest barrier to voting on election day (other than registration) is often that people cannot get off work, so in order to overcome that barrier of being barred from voting by work, the penalty should be above a day's wage, however it could be doubly bad if your typical republican boss decides to fire anyone who is late/misses work/calls-in-sick on election day, so people may feel especially pressured by their employer to not vote and thus be forced to suffer the tax penalty for not voting. The only answer to this, of course, is to liberalize absentee and mail voting restrictions or to make election day a forced national holiday with only emergency personnel allowed to work, or make elections a two day affair on saturday and sunday.)

[The Marquis de Leech]

Australia has compulsory voting. Note that you only have to turn up to get your name ticked off - there is no obligation to actually vote for anyone (you can deface your ballot to your heart's content). In fact, there's even no obligation to put the ballot in the box.

New Zealand has a middle ground. Voting isn't compulsory, but being registered to vote is.

[DireWolfSpirit]

 

6 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

You would do it by voting for the candidates that support mandatory voting and support the candidates that want mandatory registration. 

Yeah but I would only be interested in the "none of the above plurality" leads to all the candidates get dumped and a new slate gets proposed aspect of such a rule. I suspect that version would never get passed and we'd get mandatory voting without the provision for none of the above. No way could I support that, as I stated earlier, it would be banana republic if you dont like any of the candidates.

[The Marquis de Leech]

1 minute ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

 

Yeah but I would only be interested in the "none of the above plurality" leads to all the candidates get dumped and a new slate gets proposed aspect of such a rule. I suspect that version would never get passed and we'd get mandatory voting without the provision for none of the above. No way could I support that, as I stated earlier, it would be banana republic if you dont like any of the candidates.

If you don't like any of the candidates, spoil your ballot.

Problem solved.

[Kalbear]

 

6 minutes ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

Yeah but I would only be interested in the "none of the above plurality" leads to all the candidates get dumped and a new slate gets proposed aspect of such a rule. I suspect that version would never get passed and we'd get mandatory voting without the provision for none of the above. No way could I support that, as I stated earlier, it would be banana republic if you dont like any of the candidates.

This makes no logical sense.

So more people voting means that the election has...less legitimacy? But fewer people voting - like we have right now - means that the results are more fair? 

 

The FUCK?

[DireWolfSpirit]

5 minutes ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

If you don't like any of the candidates, spoil your ballot.

Problem solved.

No I consider the problem a candidate with less than a majority of votes cast being the winner, so there would have to be that provision similar to what Tywin described ( If majority is none of the above, then none of the above is the winner, thats what I would favor.)

[Kalbear]

6 minutes ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

No I consider the problem a candidate with less than a majority of votes cast being the winner, so there would have to be that provision similar to what Tywin described ( If majority is none of the above, then none of the above is the winner, thats what I would favor.)

So...you have a problem with every single president elected in the US then?

[DireWolfSpirit]

12 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

 

This makes no logical sense.

So more people voting means that the election has...less legitimacy? But fewer people voting - like we have right now - means that the results are more fair? 

 

The FUCK?

Gotta goto work but I believe my response to RBPL addresses my logic. It simply gives equal weighting to votes rejecting whats on the ballot. I think it would be useful for crushing the 2 party monopoly and I like the idea of that. G2G.

[Tywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

I'll figure out later what Clinton will need in order to clinch the election with pledged + supers. 

Roughly 27%. If she gets half the delegates from tonight it will be around 22%. If she has a big night, as projected, it could around 20%.

[Kalbear]

11 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Roughly 27%. If she gets half the delegates from tonight it will be around 22%. If she has a big night, as projected, it could around 20%.

I'm talking about when, not what total she needs. I suspect that if tonight looks as good as the demos expect it to that she might be able to clinch the nomination before California votes.