US Politics: He's so indicted, he just can't abide by it...

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 hour ago, Larry of the Lawn said:

Gonna need a little more evidence than that to convince me.  How about Jim Jordan?  Mark Meadows?  Last two Freedom Caucus chairs came from open primary states.  So did Madison Cawthorne.  

Is there any State that allows voter to participate is both the Republican and Democratic Primaries?  Or do you have to pick one or the other.  And I’m not claiming this is the only reason for the rise of the insane Right.  I’m saying it is a factor.

[Maithanet]

2012 and 2020 were pretty similar in terms of the popular vote (d+4).  Texas went from r+16 in 2012 to r+5.5 in that time.  At that rate of change, it would be basically tied in 2024.  Now, I'm well aware that will be a hard lift, those final five points will be very hard.  But if we're talking about a great night for Dems, it is definitely possible.

Edited August 25, 2023 by Maithanet

[Larry of the Lawn]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Is there any State that allows voter to participate is both the Republican and Democratic Primaries?  Or do you have to pick one or the other.  And I’m not claiming this is the only reason for the rise of the insane Right.  I’m saying it is a factor.

No, but why is that better?  Why is that preferable to say Washington and California which just have jungle primaries, there are no party primaries.  

Why should you be allowed to vote in multiple party primaries?  Why would that be better?

In Colorado, where Boebert and MTG are from, independents can vote in any primary* they like.  

I am genuinely confused as to how me voting in both say the Dem and GOP is going to eliminate radical candidates (or why eliminating radical candidates is somehow more desirable in a democracy).  If you let everyone vote in every primary what kind of a result do you expect to get?

And why is that preferable to ranked choice voting or to a jungle primary?

*Any single party's primary

Edited August 25, 2023 by Larry of the Lawn
To avoid double postinf

[JGP]

1 hour ago, Larry of the Lawn said:

 

I am genuinely confused as to how me voting in both say the Dem and GOP is going to eliminate radical candidates (or why eliminating radical candidates is somehow more desirable in a democracy).  If you let everyone vote in every primary what kind of a result do you expect to get?

 

Kind of breath taking the potential there though. Both primaries wide open, with a populace more engaged than they've been in what, decades? More? 

It'd be return of the popular vote, having a say in both government and opposition no? 

I don't know. But Scot might be on to something there.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

12 minutes ago, JGP said:

I don't know. But Scot might be on to something there.

Sorry to you and Scot, but it's an awful idea. You're better off mandating that if you don't vote in the primaries you can't vote in the general and making voting compulsory with a small fine as the motivating threat. 

Edited August 26, 2023 by Tywin et al.

[JGP]

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Sorry to you and Scot, but it's an awful idea. You're better off mandating that if you don't vote in the primaries you can't vote in the general and making voting compulsory with a small fine as the motivating threat. 

Mandatory voting. Statutory day.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

8 minutes ago, JGP said:

Mandatory voting. Statutory day.

Probably better to do it over a few days or even a week in person if you're going make everyone vote and allow mail in votes to start 2-4 weeks in advance. 

[JGP]

Yeah. But the day you do it, it' a paid day.

Would have to be made economically equitable, re-infranchise as many whoe vote has been oppressed. Make the Supreme Court put its record on the line. Surely there are some Republican, or right powerbrokers that realize Trump too is an old man that yes, he'll be got one way or the other. They're already all invested in the after of TFG-- which I thought meant That Fucking Goof for the longest time lol

He dies or quits trying, plays victim the remainder of his life. 

 

*sorry, shouldn't post stoned

Edited August 26, 2023 by JGP

[Wilbur]

In some Australian territories (maybe all?), voting is preferential and compulsory.

So you are required to vote, and you vote for your preferences in ranked order.

And you are required to rank all the candidates, if I recall correctly.

The fines for failing to vote are pretty small, though.

It would be interesting if one of the States was to adopt a similar system.

[Larry of the Lawn]

2 hours ago, JGP said:

Kind of breath taking the potential there though. Both primaries wide open, with a populace more engaged than they've been in what, decades? More? 

It'd be return of the popular vote, having a say in both government and opposition no? 

I don't know. But Scot might be on to something there.

Yeah but youre just going to get the people who already vote in primaries voting in both, it's not going to increase engagement, and then there's no point in even having a party or separate primaries- it doesn't increase participation, it's just making the same voters vote in multiple primaries.  It's make work, election style.  In every election the opposite part would run a candidate in the opposite party, it would just encourage more shenanigans and system gaming.  

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 hours ago, Wilbur said:

The fines for failing to vote are pretty small, though.

Screw fines. Make it 25 hours of community service and you'll probably get >90% turnout. And the fuckers that don't show up can clean up the parks and highways. Two birds with one stone.

[Kalbear]

Yall didn't learn shit about turnout in the last 7 years, did you?

You know who voted for Trump? It wasn't the random base as much - it was people who normally don't vote at all. 

You know why Trump got more of the vote as a percentage in 2020? Because more people turned out, and a whole lot of them like him.

The problem is not that people are as a whole moderate but they don't vote - it is that a whole lot of US citizens are racist, sexist hateful asshats. You don't fix that by giving them MORE power. You fix that by making sure parties have better control over their candidates and people vote for parties, not personalities. And even that only goes so far. But otherwise you shouldn't be very shocked when you have a personality contest to decide who runs the nation get decided by the person people find funny or entertaining and not the person who is actually good at running thjngs.

 

[Impmk2]

3 hours ago, Wilbur said:

In some Australian territories (maybe all?), voting is preferential and compulsory.

So you are required to vote, and you vote for your preferences in ranked order.

And you are required to rank all the candidates, if I recall correctly.

The fines for failing to vote are pretty small, though.

It would be interesting if one of the States was to adopt a similar system.

Voting is compulsory across all Australian states and territories.

Last election we had the lowest turnout in a while (~89%)

All candidates need to be ranked in the house where's there's generally only 5-10 candidates per seat (district). The senate (statewide) can have 100+ candidates, so while you can rank them all of them you don't have to (and people generally don't).

The fines are trivial and are sporadically enforced.

ETA: As Kal says this kind of system doesn't guarantee any kind of magical fix. Australia has elected pretty conservative pro-big business, anti-immigration governments for the majority of the past 30 years. 

Edited August 26, 2023 by Impmk2

[Varysblackfyre321]

The equivocation is dangerous. 

[Varysblackfyre321]

On 8/23/2023 at 6:29 PM, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I just… love… Racism and anti-semitism… disguised as “class consciousness”^… 

It should be recognized how ubiquitous this sort “corporations bad!” rhetoric isn’t spectacular. People of all political persuasions use this to make themselves look like the underdog even when they’re promoting some pretty evil shit.

 

Also plenty of  popular media has been produced by people more on the left politically, it’s not surprising a vague aesthetic of a similar talking point trickled down.

[Erik of Hazelfield]

You can get the vote numbers up without compulsory voting. In Sweden it’s been varying from 91.8% to 80.1% in the last 50 years. I think the main reason is that we make it ridiculously easy for people to vote. Every citizen gets a mail with the necessary voting card and info, but you can actually vote without it as long as you have an ID card, a driver’s license or a passport (nearly everyone has at least one of those). We send out information on all channels and make it possible to pre-vote in certain places weeks before. The election day is always on a Sunday so most people don’t work, the voting stations are staffed enough so that queues are usually nonexistent, and you can vote from something like 8 am to 9 pm. You really have to go out of your way to miss it. 

[Gaston de Foix]

5 hours ago, Kalnak the Magnificent said:

know why Trump got more of the vote as a percentage in 2020? Because more people turned out, and a whole lot of them like him.

He lost the popular vote twice.  More dislike him than like him. 

The argument for open primaries is to allow the people to have more control over the two major party candidates between whom they will have to choose anyway. 

And even in respect of Trump, it works.  Party elite-driven disapproval didn't stop Trump from triumphing in 2016 as the candidate of the right (not the only one, but definitely the candidate of the most right-wing voters).  A more moderate candidate would stand a better chance if every state in the country had open primaries.  

We've learned the hard way that parties can't control who becomes their nominee. 

And with the exception of John McCain the right-wing candidate has always won the nomination in the Republican party's non-incumbent primaries in the last 40-50 years.  

[Gaston de Foix]

2 hours ago, Erik of Hazelfield said:

You can get the vote numbers up without compulsory voting. In Sweden it’s been varying from 91.8% to 80.1% in the last 50 years. I think the main reason is that we make it ridiculously easy for people to vote. Every citizen gets a mail with the necessary voting card and info, but you can actually vote without it as long as you have an ID card, a driver’s license or a passport (nearly everyone has at least one of those). We send out information on all channels and make it possible to pre-vote in certain places weeks before. The election day is always on a Sunday so most people don’t work, the voting stations are staffed enough so that queues are usually nonexistent, and you can vote from something like 8 am to 9 pm. You really have to go out of your way to miss it. 

These anodyne measures are (sadly) deeply controversial in the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave.  But would be a good first step.  

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

8 hours ago, Kalnak the Magnificent said:

asshats. You don't fix that by giving them MORE power. You fix that by making sure parties have better control over their candidates and people vote for parties, not personalities

Hence my objection to primaries.  Particularly, the Republican Party Primaries where (in the Presidential context) they are winner take all allowing a plurality candidate (like Trump) to pull away early and where a big field with one slightly more popular candidate favors that slightly more popular candidate and allows that slightly more popular candidate to build a big lead early.  

At least the Democratic Party has “superdelegates” baked in to the process that creates the potential to disarm a dangerous populist candidate at the convention (I’m still curious to see how that would work and how the voting public would react).  

I’m suggesting, speculating, that  “open” primaries where everyone in a given State or SMD has the ability to participate in all primaries being run might result in less radical candidates being selected in primaries.  South Carolina does have “open” primaries.  Anyone can vote in either primary, but not in both.  

While not perfect, while we do have some crazies (Norman), we have (for the most part) been able to avoid some of the more crazy Trumpanista Republicans.  

I did vote in the 2022 Republican Primary in an effort to elect less crazy Republicans (and we had some truly crazy ones on the ballot for the Republican Primary for the 4th Congressional District from SC).  I voted in the primary for Timmons as he was the least crazy and in the General for the Democratic Candidate.  

Now Timmons has gone all in on the Trumpanista civil war crazy train.  But he waited until this week to do it.  

If nominally Democratic voters are allowed to participate in Republican Primaries as well as the Democratic and nominally Republican voters are allowed to participate in the Democratic primaries… don’t we end up with each side curbing what they see as the excesses of the other and more moderate cadidates being nominated?  

Or is the problem that it’s too late for this?  That each party would run spoilers in the other’s primaries (RFKjr. for example) to pull their die hard votes and allow the usual style candidate to rise to the top.

Maybe we were better off with “smoke filled rooms” and the public participating in only the general election?

Edited August 26, 2023 by Ser Scot A Ellison

[Raja]

Can someone please do something about this brown man, I'm ashamed. I promise you will have no idea where his line of thinking goes in this clip