U.S. Politics: Would You Like A Warranty With Your Magic Beans?

[Yukle]

9 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Isn't Eskimo racist, and the correct name Inuit?

It's not racist as such; the terms are just not interchangeable. Eskimo is an exonym not used by the people themselves. People referred to as Eskimos comprise a fairly broad group of not closely related cultures.

Think of it as calling all Canadians, Panama-ians, Mexicans and USAians "American." 

[Rippounet]

1 hour ago, SweetPea said:

Yes, but your dad dumping shit into a nearby hillside was definitely hurting others. How does not voting hurt others?

Technically it hurts yourself, and to some extent, your children (who can't vote, but whose interests you're supposed to defend).

Libertarians believe people should be free to hurt themselves, as long as they suffer the consequences for it (i.e. drive without seatbelts on, take hard drugs... etc). Human societies however deny their members such liberties, among other things in the name of human dignity and the respect for human life generally speaking. Western countries at least tend to follow the Kantian imperative:

Act so that you use humanity, as much in your own person as in the person of every other, always at the same time as end and never merely as means.

49 minutes ago, SweetPea said:

What if the person you are forcing to vote votes for Trump? Or compulsory voting is going to mean compulsory voting for democrats? 

This is precisely why compulsory voting is not a left-right issue. Democracy is democracy: you either believe in it or you don't, regardless of the outcome. But if you do, you either have to trust in people's intelligence, or believe that with compulsory voting comes compulsory education (especially civic education).
Imho a functioning democracy requires free education and compulsory voting. And by "free education" I mean classes in politics, economics and philosophy. The best way to enslave people is to deprive them of knowledge, to say that education is a privilege... Or to let people choose whether they want an education or not. Which is precisely why libertarianism is such a fraudulent ideology: by pretending to offer people more "individual liberties" it denies them actual freedom. Of course, the people who wield the most power in our society (like the Koch brothers) love that.
Anyway, yes, democracy will always entail risks. Even an educated citizenry can make terrible decisions. But again, that's just the way it is: being a democrat requires trust in humans. Or at least, trusting the people more than the 1% currently holding power.

[James Arryn]

Re: compulsory voting, I wonder if it would inspire more serious movement towards third/fourth etc parties becoming viable options. Because compulsorily voting when there are only 2 options which often (in a global context) both reflect slightly differing aspects of the same narrow political outlook would seem kinda weird. 

[Yukle]

1 minute ago, Rippounet said:

Technically it hurts yourself, and to some extent, your children (who can't vote, but whose interests you're supposed to defend).

Libertarians believe people should be free to hurt themselves, as long as they suffer the consequences for it (i.e. drive without seatbelts on, take hard drugs... etc). Human societies however deny their members such liberties, among other things in the name of human dignity and the respect for human life generally speaking. Western countries at least tend to follow the Kantian imperative:

Act so that you use humanity, as much in your own person as in the person of every other, always at the same time as end and never merely as means.

This is precisely why compulsory voting is not a left-right issue. Democracy is democracy: you either believe in it or you don't, regardless of the outcome. But if you do, you either either have to trust in people's intelligence, or believe that with compulsory voting comes compulsory education (especially civic education).
Imho a functioning democracy requires free education and compulsory voting. And by "free education" I mean classes in politics, economics and philosophy. The best way to enslave people is to deprive them of knowledge, to say that education is a privilege... Or to let people choose whether they want an education or not. Which is precisely why libertarianism is such a fraudulent ideology: by pretending to offer people more "individual liberties" it denies them actual freedom. Of course, the people who wield the most power in our society (like the Koch brothers) love that.
Anyway, yes, democracy will always entail risks. Even an educated citizenry can make terrible decisions. But again, that's just the way it is: being a democrat requires trust in humans. Or at least, trusting the people more than the 1% currently holding power.

Yes, I agree with this.

The issue is not that lack of turnout is leading to the incorrect outcomes. The issue is that poor turnout leads to unrepresentative outcomes.

If all Americans had voted in their most recent elections, and the Republicans had still won a clean sweep of the Congress and White House, then it would be fair for them to act as they have been: as though they are lords of the country, with a mandate to do whatever they think is best.

As it happens, no such thing happened. They are acting as though they are not beholden to their people despite not winning comfortable majorities (partly because a plurality is enough to win anyway).

If everyone votes, the outcome represents the will of what most people want. As it is, most people probably did not want Emperor Drumpf, but they have him.

Voting is not just a "right" to the individual, but it's a right of the state to expect that everyone provides input in the electoral process so that it can function most accurately to the common will. I'd go a bit further and argue that Americans certainly don't treat voting as a right, since they remove it from citizens for trivial reasons, but it must be seen as such.

After all, voting is also protected by America's constitution. For some reason, it's not as passionately defended as the right to shoot each other.

[Yukle]

1 minute ago, James Arryn said:

Re: compulsory voting, I wonder if it would inspire more serious movement towards third/fourth etc parties becoming viable options. Because compulsorily voting when there are only 2 options which often (in a global context) both reflect slightly differing aspects of the same narrow political outlook would seem kinda weird. 

This would be only somewhat offset by compulsory voting. A better idea is preferential voting and an elimination of "winner takes all" aspects of the USA's federal elections and primaries.

[Jace, Extat]

35 minutes ago, كالدب said:

hee

https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/1007376361101582336

I was the one-hundred-twenty-one-thousandth like vote.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

59 minutes ago, Mudguard said:

How about jury duty?  It's probably the closest thing to mandatory voting.  Jury duty is generally a lot more burdensome than casting a vote, yet it is mandatory in the US.  Would you prefer that jury duty be made voluntary?  

That said, I doubt that the US is going to pass a mandatory voting requirement anytime soon.  

Dems would need a filibuster proof Senate and the political will to do it. Never gonna happen. It could be done on the state level though. This would actually be a great example of laboratories of democracy. Go Minnesota go! It could actually pass here, if it's constitutional.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, DMBouazizi said:

Nah I'd have to check my comparative political behavior syllabus (and I'm way too lazy for that right now) because a quick google scholar search doesn't show anything (although it is suggested here).  I distinctly recall discussing a study of European nations in the seminar that controlled for variables that reduce the cost of voting, but I can't remember its title or authors.  Anyway, just looking at the list of countries with the highest turnout, it's clear compulsory voting is not necessarily needed.

Well, most countries that have compulsory voting don't enforce it - and even those that do have basically nominal penalties.  I do think people are entitled to express no approval for any of the available options.  Sure, a "none" option or turning in a a blank ballot is a solution to this, but since they're effectively the same thing as abstaining why should an individual be punished for not bothering to do so?  Further, if people don't care enough to vote when the costs of doing so are appropriately minimized, I'd rather have them not show up than resort to donkey voting.

I feel like that link does show that it's better than not to have compulsory voting, but it's not absolutely needed. And while I didn't take the time to do the proper research, it seems like it's more successful in countries that have some level of enforcement. I can understand not wanting to force people to vote who don't want to or don't care, but I still strongly support passing a law that creates some form of compulsory voting with an enforcement mechanism. The people you referenced might learn, in time, the importance of voting and their attitudes could very well shift with age. And as far as a "none of the above" option goes, if you gave it teeth, it would actually matter. Some times our leaders and prospective leaders need to see that we're giving a giant vote of no confidence. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

56 minutes ago, Vin said:

Well is it in your contract or official company policy ? If it is then isn't that kinda voluntary cause you chose to work there out of your own free will ? 

It's in a grey area, cause you're automatically in the program, but are forced by company mandate to do it, however, they will shame the every living **** out of you, and it can cost you a promotion. Take what you will from that.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

53 minutes ago, كالدب said:

hee

https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/1007376361101582336

For those that don't click:

 

[Fragile Bird]

55 minutes ago, كالدب said:

hee

https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/1007376361101582336

“But my emails”

As the top commentator said, the single best tweet I have ever read!

[Vin]

6 minutes ago, chiKanery et al. said:

It's in a grey area, cause you're automatically in the program, but are forced by company mandate to do it, however, they will shame the every living **** out of you, and it can cost you a promotion. Take what you will from that.

Hmm, can't really say without clear legal text. However I think workplace bullying and exclusion from qualified opportunities is definitely bad form and can possibly leave them open  for a lawsuit . Of course it all depends on the legal text and I'm no lawyer so who knows .

[Mudguard]

1 hour ago, Vin said:

I've already conceded that some things are going to be 100 % necessary .  

Why can't the jurors all be voluntary?  There are countries in Europe which essentially have such a system, although I think they call the volunteers "lay judges", so it should be workable.

I don't get why you are so opposed to mandatory voting but are fine with mandatory jury duty, when the burden of jury duty is often much, much greater than voting.

[Vin]

5 minutes ago, Mudguard said:

Why can't the jurors all be voluntary?  There are countries in Europe which essentially have such a system, although I think they call the volunteers "lay judges", so it should be workable.

I don't get why you are so opposed to mandatory voting but are fine with mandatory jury duty, when the burden of jury duty is often much, much greater than voting.

Well I didn't say I was okay with it but I can definitely see that my reply might have made it seem as if I did (I was trying to say that there's no need to provide random example) 

As for the actual matter of the jury , I'll be honest and say that I'm not sure , I don't think I have enough knowledge about it to make a qualified judgment. I definitely need to research it . 

[DMC]

38 minutes ago, chiKanery et al. said:

I feel like that link does show that it's better than not to have compulsory voting, but it's not absolutely needed.

Yeah that's essentially my point.

39 minutes ago, chiKanery et al. said:

I can understand not wanting to force people to vote who don't want to or don't care, but I still strongly support passing a law that creates some form of compulsory voting with an enforcement mechanism.

Well, what's your enforcement mechanism?

40 minutes ago, chiKanery et al. said:

And as far as a "none of the above" option goes, if you gave it teeth, it would actually matter. Some times our leaders and prospective leaders need to see that we're giving a giant vote of no confidence. 

I mentioned here that in my ideal world I'd have a no confidence motion for the president.  However, in a two party system as polarized as ours is now I would keep it to the legislature.  Giving it to voters is essentially a recall election, and any reasonable threshold for holding such an election (say, 40%) would be frequently be abused by the minority party.  I suspect we'd virtually have constant recall elections.

[LongRider]

4 hours ago, Darth Richard II said:

Sea Lions.

I'm drowning in irony.

[Darth Richard II]

3 minutes ago, LongRider said:

I'm drowning in irony.

OK, um, are you accusing me of SeaLioning or did I miss something?

[Yukle]

2 hours ago, chiKanery et al. said:

And as far as a "none of the above" option goes, if you gave it teeth, it would actually matter.

This already exists in de facto terms. Your ballot paper is secret (as long as it is paper and not electronic, in which case that is a security liability).

You don't have to fill in the ballot paper correctly, or even at all. Australian law invalidates clearly defaced ballots that can easily be called false. Only ballots where the intention of the voter is clear are counted. Invalid ballots are about 4%, which is fairly high if you think of it as 1 in 25 people.

[Yukle]

1 hour ago, DMBouazizi said:

Yeah that's essentially my point.

Well, what's your enforcement mechanism?

I mentioned here that in my ideal world I'd have a no confidence motion for the president.

Isn't that kind of what impeachment is? Or do you mean a more straightforward vote, and no 2/3 Senate conviction?

Also, would you prefer the President doesn't have immunity to prosecution throughout his term?

[LongRider]

59 minutes ago, Darth Richard II said:

OK, um, are you accusing me of SeaLioning or did I miss something?

My irony meter just crashed.