GOP bid for control in Nevada raises fear of endless recalls - Polidicks

[url]http://www.newsobserver.com/news/nation-world/national/article198776924.html[/url] [quote]Nevada's major political parties are locked in a legal battle over a Republican effort to take control of the state Senate by recalling two freshly elected Democratic lawmakers — a tactic that Democrats warn could undermine the validity of elections across the U.S. Experts and those from both parties say the move could be the way of the future for the losing side to keep control of influential statehouses. In Nevada, no official reason was given for the recalls, and none was required. Some conservatives have been open about hoping Republicans gain partisan advantage. Republicans in 2016 lost hold of the Nevada Senate, which Democrats now control by an 11-9 margin. The GOP then circulated petitions to recall two Democratic senators and one independent who caucuses with them. Republicans gathered enough signatures to launch recall elections of the Democrats, Nicole Cannizzaro and Joyce Woodhouse, who had been narrowly elected the previous year from swing districts in the Las Vegas area.[/quote] TLDR the GOP is trying to get two Democratic state senators recalled - the unusual thing is that they have given no specific reason or justification for why these two should be recalled, they just gathered the signatures and did it. These two are also from close swing districts that the GOP thinks it would stand a chance of winning in a recall election. If this succeeds, recall elections will go from a rare, exceptional political event to be used only in the event of a scandal, to an everyday partisan tool.

I mean, if it's basically another reelection, wouldn't the dems win? Can't imagine gop chances would be much better with trump still president. Also the political process is going down the toilet. The gop will be fucking stupid and open the floodgates to a torrent of political bullshit, the nuclear option in the senate being used for everything, dozens of recall elections a year, impeaching judges who rule against a particular party. Fascists

[QUOTE=TheBorealis;53115297]I mean, if it's basically another reelection, wouldn't the dems win? Can't imagine gop chances would be much better with trump still president. Also the political process is going down the toilet. The gop will be fucking stupid and open the floodgates to a torrent of political bullshit, the nuclear option in the senate being used for everything, dozens of recall elections a year, impeaching judges who rule against a particular party. Fascists[/QUOTE] recall elections are like midterms your party can call. the republicans will have the larger turnout because they're the only ones being active about it. also Fuck the GOP, this "everybody does it" excuse is bullshit, they are actively fixing the courts, the state houses, the congressional districts, and the media but when it doesn't work they blame the system

[QUOTE=Sableye;53115308]recall elections are like midterms your party can call. the republicans will have the larger turnout because they're the only ones being active about it. also Fuck the GOP, this "everybody does it" excuse is bullshit, they are actively fixing the courts, the state houses, the congressional districts, and the media but when it doesn't work they blame the system[/QUOTE] If the gop was more competent the country and maybe the whole fucking world would be so bad. Where did this complete lack of ethics and empathy come from. edit: also SCOTUS case imcoming? doing a recall for no reason but partisanship is fucking abominable

[QUOTE=TheBorealis;53115311]If the gop was more competent the country and maybe the whole fucking world would be so bad. Where did this complete lack of ethics and empathy come from. edit: also SCOTUS case imcoming? doing a recall for no reason but partisanship is fucking abominable[/QUOTE] the issue is its not illegal, and having the ability to recall a sitting politician is an important check on democracy. its all abuse of important functions till everything is broken like the filibuster

Republicans are scumbags

[QUOTE=Lambeth;53115324]Republicans are scumbags[/QUOTE] (dems probably do this too to a lesser extent) If they fucking did their job and do their best to improve their district/state/whatever instead of partisan bullshit recalls and gerrymandering and voter suppression they wouldn't have to cheat to win the fucking cretins edit: holy shit this makes me mad get ready for fucking 5 recall elections a year

"The president won libcucks accept it" "WE CAN'T LOSE ELECTIONS! RECALL! RECALL!"

The further you get from the year you wish it was the more desperately you're going to try to cling to it. We have congress members protecting a psycho-idiot joke president knee deep in Russian shit, that one guy from the gerrymandering case basically saying "well I think Republicans should win so I'm gonna change it so they do," and now this.

Glad to see the GOP has devolved into being your big brother who keeps losing to you at chess and challenges you to endless rematches until he finally wins a game and then declares he's not playing chess again so he can retire the champion. Up next: Replacing American democracy with Federal Calvinball.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;53115324]Republicans are scumbags[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=elixwhitetail;53115744]Glad to see the GOP has devolved into being your big brother who keeps losing to you at chess and challenges you to endless rematches until he finally wins a game and then declares he's not playing chess again so he can retire the champion. Up next: Replacing American democracy with Federal Calvinball.[/QUOTE] While the Republicans pursuing these questionable recalls are being scumbags, I really don’t think that it’s at all productive to label [i]all[/i] Republicans as scumbags. The only thing that can come out of doing that is more division, more ‘us versus them’; more toxicity in American politics. Those attitudes really aren’t helping to make America a better place. I say that especially because the Republican Governor of Nevada came out against the recall efforts: [quote]But the state's Republican governor, Brian Sandoval, has voiced alarm at the recalls. "There really wasn't, I think, a legitimate reason for the recalls," Sandoval told The Nevada Independent news website last year. "So it just kind of escalates the politics, mean-spiritedness politics. I think both parties will now use it on a regular basis, and that's not what Nevada politics has ever been and that's not what it should be.”[/quote]

I appreciate the Republicans with integrity and respect for the democratic process and, yeah, it's fair to point out that it's unfair to paint the entire party over the bad apples. [I]But this keeps fucking happening and it's getting worse.[/I] The Republican Party has condoned the actions of these bad apples for decades, or else this wouldn't still be a problem after fuckloads of constant modern gerrymandering. At some point you are responsible for not standing up for the principles of your party and encouraging your voters and all Americans to demand the fucknuts responsible for tampering with democracy to win get shamed/voted out of politics. The national strategy of the GOP has been to bet the farm on old white bigots, whether you (being any R voter, not BF specifically) as a Republican identify with that group or not, and they're now doubling down and thrashing about as courts find the system rigged in their favour (for the most part; dem gerrymandering does exist and should also be corrected). Establishment Republicans who believe in the integrity of the system should recognize that they're allying with a cornered animal that has no intention of giving up its power in the face of widespread public and judicial recognition that a number of red states [I]should have been blue for a decade or more[/I] but for hilariously depressing gerrymanders.

[QUOTE=BF;53115795]While the Republicans pursuing these questionable recalls are being scumbags, I really don’t think that it’s at all productive to label [I]all[/I] Republicans as scumbags. The only thing that can come out of doing that is more division, more ‘us versus them’; more toxicity in American politics. Those attitudes really aren’t helping to make America a better place. I say that especially because the Republican Governor of Nevada came out against the recall efforts:[/QUOTE] I mean even just having surface-level observation of national politics during the last 2 or 5 or 30 years would show you that Sandoval is in the minority. For years the Republicans have been trying to limit the right to vote as much as they can and are now publicly supporting baseless recall elections and defending gerrymandering. That one in ten capital-R-Republicans are okay people isn't going to stop me from saying the entire party is a cancer choking this country of life.

[QUOTE=BF;53115795]While the Republicans pursuing these questionable recalls are being scumbags, I really don’t think that it’s at all productive to label [i]all[/i] Republicans as scumbags. The only thing that can come out of doing that is more division, more ‘us versus them’; more toxicity in American politics. Those attitudes really aren’t helping to make America a better place. I say that especially because the Republican Governor of Nevada came out against the recall efforts:[/QUOTE] I don't think it's all that productive to tone police.

[QUOTE=BF;53115795]While the Republicans pursuing these questionable recalls are being scumbags, I really don’t think that it’s at all productive to label [i]all[/i] Republicans as scumbags. The only thing that can come out of doing that is more division, more ‘us versus them’; more toxicity in American politics. Those attitudes really aren’t helping to make America a better place. I say that especially because the Republican Governor of Nevada came out against the recall efforts:[/QUOTE] I'm not labeling all Conservative voters as scumbags, but freely and openly label institutional Republican leadership as such, and wish that Conservative voters would come out against the shit their leadership is pulling more aggressively. There is zero integrity among Republican leadership on a federal level, and very little to be found on a state level. All who willingly go along with these betrayals of our democratic system are tacitly supporting them.

When will this idiots realize... if you burn down democracy every time the will of the people doesn't coincide with the will of the party, sooner or later people will give up on democracy. You know how transfer of power happens when you're not a democracy? Usually it involves people getting killed. If Senator Jeremiah McFlagwaver keeps changing the rules every time it looks like he might lose an election, sooner or later someone's going to just up and shoot him. When you continually twist the rules of democracy for your own gain, you not only invite the other party to do the same - you invite people to disregard the rules entirely. [I]That is not good[/I] - not for the people of the country, and not even for the GOP scumbags who are clinging desperately to power. There are [I]good reasons[/I] why democracy is the best form of government, and tearing it down for temporary political gain is incredibly shortsighted. Not every GOP politician is involved with this, but all of them are complicit by the fact that they aren't immediately repudiating it. The politicians pulling this kind of crap need to be kicked out of the party, not put in charge of it.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;53115893]I'm not labeling all Conservative voters as scumbags, but freely and openly label institutional Republican leadership as such, and wish that Conservative voters would come out against the shit their leadership is pulling more aggressively. There is zero integrity among Republican leadership on a federal level, and very little to be found on a state level. All who willingly go along with these betrayals of our democratic system are tacitly supporting them.[/QUOTE] i think you can safely say it's 'all conservatives' when 90% of them still think trump is doing what they want

I propose a new system of government. Representatives are randomly selected from the population. They must be adults who have completed high school. Felony history is irrelevant. Every two to four years a new person is select randomly from the appropriate constituency. It is like jury duty. Only for government office. This is a terrible form of government. But at this point it is probably better than what we have.

[QUOTE=GunFox;53115982]I propose a new system of government. Representatives are randomly selected from the population. They must be adults who have completed high school. Felony history is irrelevant. Every four years a new person is select randomly from the appropriate constituency. It is like jury duty. Only for government office. This is a terrible form of government. But at this point it is probably better than what we have.[/QUOTE] This exists. It's called [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition"]sortition[/URL]. It's what the ancient Greeks used, and it worked fairly well for them for their brief time of not being conquered. Random choice means votes cannot be tampered with and elections cannot be corrupted. Well, the Greeks selected at random from lists of volunteer names, rather than picking out of the phone book for the whole population, but same general idea. Instead of trusting democracy, let random chance be the arbiter, and let it be done in public for accountability's sake. Problem is, you need an educated populace for this to work well, or else, well... look at the former reality TV star in the Oval Office right now.

[QUOTE=Luni;53115943]i think you can safely say it's 'all conservatives' when 90% of them still think trump is doing what they want[/QUOTE] I'd love to see the data behind that claim

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;53115986]This exists. It's called [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition"]sortition[/URL]. It's what the ancient Greeks used, and it worked fairly well for them for their brief time of not being conquered. Random choice means votes cannot be tampered with and elections cannot be corrupted. Well, the Greeks selected at random from lists of volunteer names, rather than picking out of the phone book for the whole population, but same general idea. Instead of trusting democracy, let random chance be the arbiter, and let it be done in public for accountability's sake. Problem is, you need an educated populace for this to work well, or else, well... look at the former reality TV star in the Oval Office right now.[/QUOTE] Technically speaking you could let state governments elect senators. Which would then place veteran politicians against random people from the population. This is generally how our government was supposed to work anyhow. It would obviously never happen, but I would be super fascinated to see what would happen if it did. Edit: also I had no idea the Greeks tried that. Though I would specifically not make it a volunteer job. The point is to put people into power who specifically don't want to be in power.

[QUOTE=GunFox;53115982]I propose a new system of government. Representatives are randomly selected from the population. They must be adults who have completed high school. Felony history is irrelevant. Every four years a new person is select randomly from the appropriate constituency. It is like jury duty. Only for government office. This is a terrible form of government. But at this point it is probably better than what we have.[/QUOTE] Actually this is an excellent idea which I personally advocate (but not in this particular form), and others do as well. It’s called sortition. The particular idea which I advocate is for upper houses to be appointed by sortition, with a new batch of appointees selected each year, for one year terms. Every enrolled voter in that jurisdiction is eligible for selection. If they are selected for the role, they may not opt-out unless they have a really good reason eg if they are in witness protection. But to make it up for them, they get a six figure salary, and free accommodation and transport while they are serving. In that upper house, all votes are conducted by secret vote, with only tallies of how many voted each way being recorded, as opposed to how each member voted. The upper house is encouraged to form committees and perform estimates hearings, but their power to influence legislation (aside from providing opinions to the lower house) is limited to a two-thirds supermajority voting in the affirmative to veto legislation and other bills. There are many advantages. Random sampling means it is very likely that women and minorities will attain equitable representation in that chamber, as opposed to most elected legislatures in the west being dominated by white men. As a result, there’s a greater diversity of perspectives in that legislature, full of members from all walks of life. Having votes conducted in secret means the members can always act on their conscience without fear of backlash against themselves personally, and cannot be bribed to vote in a particular way. And it’s not necessary that the public know how each member votes anyways, as the members are not held accountable to the public (unlike elected representatives, who are). Having the two-thirds veto rule means that the upper house cannot hold government hostage for petty reasons, but if the public (and therefore, the upper house too, given sortitions are random samples of populations) are particularly opposed to a certain bill, that upper house will be able to block it. It wouldn’t work well if the government was derived from the legislature like in most parliaments, but for upper houses, it is most definitely an idea which I am passionate about.

[QUOTE=BF;53116019]Actually this is an excellent idea which I personally advocate (but not in this particular form), and others do as well. It’s called sortition. The particular idea which I advocate is for upper houses to be appointed by sortition, with a new batch of appointees selected each year, for one year terms. Every enrolled voter in that jurisdiction is eligible for selection. If they are selected for the role, they may not opt-out unless they have a really good reason eg if they are in witness protection. But to make it up for them, they get a six figure salary, and free accommodation and transport while they are serving. In that upper house, all votes are conducted by secret vote, with only tallies of how many voted each way being recorded, as opposed to how each member voted. The upper house is encouraged to form committees and perform estimates hearings, but their power to influence legislation (aside from providing opinions to the lower house) is limited to a two-thirds supermajority voting in the affirmative to veto legislation and other bills. There are many advantages. Random sampling means it is very likely that women and minorities will attain equitable representation in that chamber, as opposed to most elected legislatures in the west being dominated by white men. As a result, there’s a greater diversity of perspectives in that legislature, full of members from all walks of life. Having votes conducted in secret means the members can always act on their conscience without fear of backlash against themselves personally, and cannot be bribed to vote in a particular way. And it’s not necessary that the public know how each member votes anyways, as the members are not held accountable to the public (unlike elected representatives, who are). Having the two-thirds veto rule means that the upper house cannot hold government hostage for petty reasons, but if the public (and therefore, the upper house too, given sortitions are random samples of populations) are particularly opposed to a certain bill, that upper house will be able to block it. It wouldn’t work well if the government was derived from the legislature like in most parliaments, but for upper houses, it is most definitely an idea which I am passionate about.[/QUOTE] What an interesting idea. Particularly that votes can be held by secret ballot. If you don't elect people to office, then knowing how they vote becomes irrelevant. Though I suppose it does need to be trackable to some degree for agencies to investigate corruption cases. Though corruption also becomes more expensive with such a high turnover rate. Perhaps reducing the efficacy of corruption to near zero. Okay I am increasingly amused by this idea.

There are drawbacks to sortition. If someone does not want the job, there needs to be a way of ensuring they have at least the minimum enthusiasm to do their job. Otherwise your sortition process amounts to picking people until you find someone who won't quit on the first day.

[QUOTE=GunFox;53115982]I propose a new system of government. Representatives are randomly selected from the population. They must be adults who have completed high school. Felony history is irrelevant. Every two to four years a new person is select randomly from the appropriate constituency. It is like jury duty. Only for government office. This is a terrible form of government. But at this point it is probably better than what we have.[/QUOTE] Why not? We could coopt the Selective Service system for it, treat legislative office like the draft.

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;53116088]There are drawbacks to sortition. If someone does not want the job, there needs to be a way of ensuring they have at least the minimum enthusiasm to do their job. Otherwise your sortition process amounts to picking people until you find someone who won't quit on the first day.[/QUOTE] They can't quit! It is a felony! Also they get paid 175 thousand dollars a year. Very few people will lack enthusiasm.

[QUOTE=BF;53116019]Actually this is an excellent idea which I personally advocate (but not in this particular form), and others do as well. It’s called sortition. The particular idea which I advocate is for upper houses to be appointed by sortition, with a new batch of appointees selected each year, for one year terms. Every enrolled voter in that jurisdiction is eligible for selection. If they are selected for the role, they may not opt-out unless they have a really good reason eg if they are in witness protection. But to make it up for them, they get a six figure salary, and free accommodation and transport while they are serving. In that upper house, all votes are conducted by secret vote, with only tallies of how many voted each way being recorded, as opposed to how each member voted. The upper house is encouraged to form committees and perform estimates hearings, but their power to influence legislation (aside from providing opinions to the lower house) is limited to a two-thirds supermajority voting in the affirmative to veto legislation and other bills. There are many advantages. Random sampling means it is very likely that women and minorities will attain equitable representation in that chamber, as opposed to most elected legislatures in the west being dominated by white men. As a result, there’s a greater diversity of perspectives in that legislature, full of members from all walks of life. Having votes conducted in secret means the members can always act on their conscience without fear of backlash against themselves personally, and cannot be bribed to vote in a particular way. And it’s not necessary that the public know how each member votes anyways, as the members are not held accountable to the public (unlike elected representatives, who are). Having the two-thirds veto rule means that the upper house cannot hold government hostage for petty reasons, but if the public (and therefore, the upper house too, given sortitions are random samples of populations) are particularly opposed to a certain bill, that upper house will be able to block it. It wouldn’t work well if the government was derived from the legislature like in most parliaments, but for upper houses, it is most definitely an idea which I am passionate about.[/QUOTE] How do you account for the fact that you'd very likely appoint morons to most positions

[QUOTE=geel9;53116158]How do you account for the fact that you'd very likely appoint morons to most positions[/QUOTE] I would direct you to the current cast of idiots we have in office.

[QUOTE=GunFox;53116163]I would direct you to the current cast of idiots we have in office.[/QUOTE] I'd rather have the morons in office than the moronic citizens who [i]actually support those morons.[/i]

[QUOTE=geel9;53116165]I'd rather have the morons in office than the moronic citizens who [i]actually support those morons.[/i][/QUOTE] The morons in office are also often both malicious and power hungry. We'd be better off with random people who don't have the opportunity to ever solidify their power in office. People who know nothing of the "game" that is politics.