US Politics: Happy Anniversary.

[fionwe1987]

18 minutes ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

Why suggest something that has a 0% chance of ever happening? 

The alternative of open primaries where folks get to vote for candidates from both parties is so very high probability??

None of this discussion has much chance of happening. I thought that was rather obvious to everyone. The likeliest thing, right now, is a Trump second term. 

What we're doing is wishing. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 minutes ago, fionwe1987 said:

The alternative of open primaries where folks get to vote for candidates from both parties is so very high probability??

None of this discussion has much chance of happening. I thought that was rather obvious to everyone. The likeliest thing, right now, is a Trump second term. 

What we're doing is wishing. 

Wishing for something that has no chance makes as much sense as buying a pet rock. We have to be practical. I want to have a radically different constitution, but it ain't happening, so why waste time thinking about it? 

[TrackerNeil]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I’d love to see the US eliminate single member districts and elect House members in State wide proportional representation elections.  I’d also like to greatly increase the size of the HoR.  

This I could get behind. Winner-take-all systems IMO encourage bad behavior (pandering to primary voters, insincere support of third-party candidates, etc.) and produce inflated majorities.

Edited January 15 by TrackerNeil

[Durckad]

2 hours ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

Wishing for something that has no chance makes as much sense as buying a pet rock. We have to be practical. I want to have a radically different constitution, but it ain't happening, so why waste time thinking about it? 

Because it's good to have something to aim for even if it is unfeasible. Things can always be improved, nothing is ever perfect.

Should everyone just stop fighting for and wanting universal healthcare just because "it has no chance of happening?" And hey, we got the ACA so everything is good now. No need to try and get a better thing.

[Ormond]

3 hours ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

Why suggest something that has a 0% chance of ever happening? 

This has already happened in California, Alaska, Maine, and Louisiana, at least for some elections, and has been the case for decades for the state legislature and some more local offices in Nebraska. So to so it has 0% chance is already disproven.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

4 minutes ago, Durckad said:

Because it's good to have something to aim for even if it is unfeasible.

No, it's good to aim for something that's feasible. That's why we have the ACA.

4 minutes ago, Ormond said:

This has already happened in California, Alaska, Maine, and Louisiana, at least for some elections, and has been the case for decades for the state legislature and some more local offices in Nebraska. So to so it has 0% chance is already disproven.

The comment was about voting in multiple primaries in one election. That's different from say ranked choice voting. 

[Larry of the Lawn]

3 hours ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

Why suggest something that has a 0% chance of ever happening? 

??? That what like half the discussion on this board is.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

5 minutes ago, Larry of the Lawn said:

??? That what like half the discussion on this board is.

Listen man, I've got a better chance of riding a dragon than voting in multiple primaries. 

[Ormond]

19 minutes ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

 

The comment was about voting in multiple primaries in one election. That's different from say ranked choice voting. 

I'm sorry, but you made your statement after you quoted fionwe's following statement:

Quote

I think America would be best served by switching from a first past the post election system, more than anything else. Whether in primaries or the general, if you have to keep seeking votes till 50% have really said "you're better than whatever remains of the competition", that does a lot of the heavy lifting of keeping away extremists of any kind. 

So I think I was reasonable in assuming you were referring to any deviation from "first past the post" such as ranked choice voting or "jungle primarires."

I don't agree with letting people vote in more than one party's primary -- partly because "party membership" is nearly meaningless in the USA. There are states like Michigan which don't even have voter registration by party and where you just tell the election worker what ballot you want when you show up for the election. In states that do have party registration, though you may have to register in advance and so do a minor amount of personal planning to vote in a primary, registering with a party just involves declaring which party you prefer. Parties themselves have absolutely no control over who registers with them. Theoretically, Trump could switch his registration to Democrat or Green tomorrow and AOC could switch her registration to Republican or Libertarian tomorrow and the parties would have absolutely no way to prevent that. You cannot be "expelled" from membership in a political party in the USA. If one is elected to a legislature, there might be the possibility of being expelled from the party caucus within the legislature, but one would still be registered with that party and would have the right to run in the next primary election for that party. What other organizations are there in the USA besides political parties where the governing bodies of the organization have absolutely no control over who is a member in this way? 

Edited January 15 by Ormond

[fionwe1987]

I'd like to not have words put in my mouth and conflated with someone else's points. Bad enough to have that in one thread, does this need to spread here now?

I explicitly said people shouldn't vote in multiple primaries, because it expects "good/sensible" behavior from the electorate. My proposed solution was to eliminate first past the post elections, in primaries and the general election, which, as others have pointed out, has been tried in this country, so it isn't 0% probable, and even if it was, would still be worth discussing. 

[Durckad]

16 minutes ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

No, it's good to aim for something that's feasible. That's why we have the ACA.

Disagreed.

If you're expending political capital or time to actually get something done, yeah sure, okay. Kind of disagree but I can see the logic to this.

But we're just people spitballing on the internet and hoping for something better. Nothing wrong with that. The fact that the dude with the doomer avatar is the one saying this is... uh, well it's certainly something.

[Larry of the Lawn]

17 minutes ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

Listen man, I've got a better chance of riding a dragon than voting in multiple primaries. 

You quoted the thing about first past the post though.  But why the gatekeeping of what's allowed to be discussed here?  You  discuss unlikely hypotheticals all the time.

Edited January 15 by Larry of the Lawn

[sologdin]

these are the sort of articles that flatter my prejudices.  the top ten most unhealthy states, it argues, are shithole states, i.e., run by the rightwing:

Quote

 

1. West Virginia
2. Mississippi
3. Tennessee
4. Arkansas
5. Kentucky
6. Alabama
7. Louisiana
8. Oklahoma
9. Ohio
10. Indiana

meanwhile, the top ten most healthy are predictably more progressive, except for utah, the relative health of which might be attributable to clean LDS living.  good on them:

Quote

 

1. Hawaii
2. Utah
3. Connecticut
4. Minnesota
5. Massachusetts
6. Colorado
7. New Jersey
8. New Hampshire
9. Washington
10. New York

 

the question accordingly becomes whether rightwing policy causes bad health outcomes generally or that bad health exists for other reasons and leads inexorably to a fascistic electorate.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 hours ago, Ormond said:

I'm sorry, but you made your statement after you quoted fionwe's following statement:

So I think I was reasonable in assuming you were referring to any deviation from "first past the post" such as ranked choice voting or "jungle primarires."

Scot made a ridiculous comment. Fionwe quoted him with another. Pointing out none starters are a waste of time doesn't seem like it matters which one it is.

2 hours ago, Durckad said:

But we're just people spitballing on the internet and hoping for something better. Nothing wrong with that. 

Spitball realistically, not about creating unicorns. Or sharks with frickin laser beams on their heads. At least when you're trying to be serious.

2 hours ago, Larry of the Lawn said:

But why the gatekeeping of what's allowed to be discussed here?  You  discuss unlikely hypotheticals all the time.

Unlikely, not impossible. 

Edited January 15 by Mr. Chatywin et al.

[Ormond]

21 minutes ago, sologdin said:

the question accordingly becomes whether rightwing policy causes bad health outcomes generally or that bad health exists for other reasons and leads inexorably to a fascistic electorate.

My theory would be that in this case correlation doesn't mean causation in either direction, but that a poorly educated population is the underlying factor that leads to both poor health and susceptibility to right-wing populism. 

P.S. And it looks like that according to Wikipedia's page on personal educational attainment by states, that Utah is the "red" state with the highest % of adults over 25 who have bachelor's degrees.

Edited January 15 by Ormond

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

24 minutes ago, sologdin said:

these are the sort of articles that flatter my prejudices.  the top ten most unhealthy states, it argues, are shithole states, i.e., run by the rightwing:

meanwhile, the top ten most healthy are predictably more progressive, except for utah, the relative health of which might be attributable to clean LDS living.  good on them:

the question accordingly becomes whether rightwing policy causes bad health outcomes generally or that bad health exists for other reasons and leads inexorably to a fascistic electorate.

I’m Surprised South Carolina didn’t make the top ten…

[TheKitttenGuard]

A few thoughts on open voter primary:

A review of how we allow Private Political Parties the use of taxpayer money to conduct and run them should be a more open topic. I think people who do register, and those who do more, should have a strong say on their candidate. The most ideal I see is allow the party members select the slate, personally 3-4, and that will be for the OV Primary. It should be far less expensive to allow for private funding of that part. I do not like open candidate and open primary for in a given area, that can be easily overwhelmed by bad actors.

 

I cannot but feel that some of this discussion is to once again foil and finally destroy that darn, pesky Factionalism. Factionalism, like life will, uh, find a way.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

9 minutes ago, TheKitttenGuard said:

I cannot but feel that some of this discussion is to once again foil and finally destroy that darn, pesky Factionalism. Factionalism, like life will, uh, find a way.

Factionalism is natural and will arrise.  However, as Shryke pointed out on this board… almost a decade ago… the US Constitution is built on the presumption of “good faith” factionalism.  That people may be factional but will work in good faith for the benefit of all.

When, as now, the two major factions insist on portraying each other as evil… compromise is next to impossible and the Constitutional structure of the US grinds to a halt.  The Constitution provides so much power to minority factions that the majority can almost always be stymied.  

Majoritarian governance doesn’t work if the major factions refuse to compromise with one another in good faith.  

[TormundsWoman]

1 hour ago, sologdin said:

these are the sort of articles that flatter my prejudices.  the top ten most unhealthy states, it argues, are shithole states, i.e., run by the rightwing:

meanwhile, the top ten most healthy are predictably more progressive, except for utah, the relative health of which might be attributable to clean LDS living.  good on them:

the question accordingly becomes whether rightwing policy causes bad health outcomes generally or that bad health exists for other reasons and leads inexorably to a fascistic electorate.

If you’re trying to link those rankings with political leanings, I think it’s possible that conservatives have a strong dislike for science. And therefore nutritional advice. I also think the liberal voting people in those states have some food swamps and food deserts that are strategically found in their area. 

Regardless I read a lot of papers about why that ranking is the way it is. Multiple factors too apparently. Mark Mattson has some interesting points to make about the whys. Other scientists too. 

[Jaxom 1974]

That'd be... something...