• Advocates file suit against NY Board of Elections for voter suppression
    43 replies, posted
[QUOTE=mcharest;50162852]Trump would never beat Sanders. He might, just might, beat Clinton, though. And I'm not making this up - most polls confirm that of the two Democratic candidates, Sanders is the more electable of the two. But for those who doubt the numbers, I'd encourage you to check out [url=http://static.currentaffairs.org/2016/02/unless-the-democrats-nominate-sanders-a-trump-nomination-means-a-trump-presidency]this article[/url]. It runs step-by-step through a Trump-Clinton matchup and the result could end up being a perfect storm.[/QUOTE] so Donald Trump will easily rip Hilary in pieces, but it sounds like the GOP will do everything in it's power to NOT make trump nominee.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50161556]Registration should be automatic for every citizen. You should simply be able to show up to the polling place with your social security number, ID, etc, declare which party you want to vote for, and cast your vote. Huge amounts of voters get turned away at the polls for not realizing that they missed registration deadlines, didn't declare parties, or failed to update their registration forms to reflect various things. I was turned away in Missouri because I recently moved and didn't realize that I had to update my registration with my new addres, and couldn't at the polls. I was there for fifteen minutes trying to get it sorted on the phone with the Missouri election board, to no avail, and saw no less than a dozen other people being turned away for similar infractions. Missouri's final split between Sanders and Clinton was a fraction of a percent. Every one of those votes could have actually had an impact. I don't think there's any deliberate suppression going on here, but our voting system is horribly mismanaged. We need serious overhauls to make voting easier and more accessible.[/QUOTE] Welcome to primaries
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50161556]Registration should be automatic for every citizen. You should simply be able to show up to the polling place with your social security number, ID, etc, declare which party you want to vote for, and cast your vote. Huge amounts of voters get turned away at the polls for not realizing that they missed registration deadlines, didn't declare parties, or failed to update their registration forms to reflect various things. I was turned away in Missouri because I recently moved and didn't realize that I had to update my registration with my new addres, and couldn't at the polls. I was there for fifteen minutes trying to get it sorted on the phone with the Missouri election board, to no avail, and saw no less than a dozen other people being turned away for similar infractions. Missouri's final split between Sanders and Clinton was a fraction of a percent. Every one of those votes could have actually had an impact. I don't think there's any deliberate suppression going on here, but our voting system is horribly mismanaged. We need serious overhauls to make voting easier and more accessible.[/QUOTE] We should just go back to the old ways and let the party establishment pick the candidates instead. Automatically register every citizen to vote and have the federal government mail them a special voter id or allow some other form of government issued id to work instead. If a party picks a candidate(example given; Hillary and DNC) that a large majority doesn't like then the party gets fucked as they lose the election. Next election DNC will look very closely at their candidate.
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;50165048]We should just go back to the old ways and let the party establishment pick the candidates instead. Automatically register every citizen to vote and have the federal government mail them a special voter id or allow some other form of government issued id to work instead. If a party picks a candidate(example given; Hillary and DNC) that a large majority doesn't like then the party gets fucked as they lose the election. Next election DNC will look very closely at their candidate.[/QUOTE] you should be asking for voting reform, not advocating less democracy in a scenario that would hide the corruption
[QUOTE=bitches;50165129]you should be asking for voting reform, not advocating less democracy in a scenario that would hide the corruption[/QUOTE] How is that less democracy? Parties are private organizations, they aren't meant to be public. But if they pick the wrong person they learn the hard way.
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;50171563]How is that less democracy? Parties are private organizations, they aren't meant to be public. But if they pick the wrong person they learn the hard way.[/QUOTE] That's a semantic argument. When two parties control who is able to participate in the government, those parties make the rules. With a voting system that does not [I]allow[/I] for third/alternate parties to run concurrently to the main two, they control the government. This makes them extensions of the government, in action though not in name. Doesn't sound like democracy to me, to not allow any voting for who you want to be president, but who [I]they[/I] want to be president.
[QUOTE=bitches;50171703]That's a semantic argument. [B]When two parties control who is able to participate in the government, those parties make the rules[/B]. With a voting system that does not [I]allow[/I] for third/alternate parties to run concurrently to the main two, they control the government. This makes them extensions of the government, in action though not in name. Doesn't sound like democracy to me, to not allow any voting for who you want to be president, [B]but who [I]they[/I] want to be president.[/B][/QUOTE] That is a failure of the First Past the Post system and people still decide who they want as the president, not the parties. If two parties picked terrible individuals, the people will strike them down and elect a party outside the major spotlight.
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;50171981]That is a failure of the First Past the Post system and people still decide who they want as the president, not the parties. If two parties picked terrible individuals, the people will strike them down and elect a party outside the major spotlight.[/QUOTE] It is a failure of a system that the two controlling parties ensure will remains the status quo. Parties pick terrible individuals all the time, and the people do not care unless they completely tank the economy. That doesn't make the power they hold over American citizens right.
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;50171981]That is a failure of the First Past the Post system and people still decide who they want as the president, not the parties. If two parties picked terrible individuals, the people will strike them down and elect a party outside the major spotlight.[/QUOTE] It's a failure of having single-member districts. As long as the US has an elected President, there will always be a two-party system. It doesn't matter whether they're elected by FPTP, French-style two-round voting or Australian-style instant-runoff voting. Look at Australia. We have a voting system which a lot of Americans seem to champion for some reason (where they call it the alternative vote). However, we have a two-party system with Labor on the left and the Liberal/National coalition on the right. When other parties or independents get elected, they're usually elected to (some) local councils, state legislative councils or the Senate, which all have multi-member districts.
[QUOTE=sb27;50172376]It's a failure of having single-member districts. As long as the US has an elected President, there will always be a two-party system. It doesn't matter whether they're elected by FPTP, French-style two-round voting or Australian-style instant-runoff voting. Look at Australia. We have a voting system which a lot of Americans seem to champion for some reason (where they call it the alternative vote). However, we have a two-party system with Labor on the left and the Liberal/National coalition on the right. When other parties or independents get elected, they're usually elected to (some) local councils, state legislative councils or the Senate, which all have multi-member districts.[/QUOTE] it sounds like your politics are more stable than ours, then, if your people do not wish for a third party candidate the problem here is that we DO wish for third party candidates; our first and second party candidates are being as shitty as possible because they can't be thrown out
[QUOTE=bitches;50172936]it sounds like your politics are more stable than ours, then, if your people do not wish for a third party candidate the problem here is that we DO wish for third party candidates; our first and second party candidates are being as shitty as possible because they can't be thrown out[/QUOTE] You completely missed the point of what I was saying. The problem is that people here DO want third party members of parliament. A lot of people here support the Greens, and yet they only have one out of the 150 seats in the House of Reps. There are many other parties too. But the whole point of what I was saying is that when you have elections where only one candidate can win, it inherently leads to a two-party system. It doesn't matter whether the vote is done by FPTP, instant-runoff/alternative vote, Borda count or even Condorcet methods. If only one person/group can win, it will gradually devolve into a two-party system. The only way the US will ever have a 'third-party' head of government is if the US government either: A) became a parliamentary system where the members of the House of Representatives form government (instead of the President), and members of the House are elected by a proportional voting method such as party-list proportional, single transferable vote or single non-transferable vote, or B) the executive government transforms from a Presidency to a kind of 'board of directors', where the board members are elected by a nation-wide proportional vote. [editline]21st April 2016[/editline] Australian House of Reps, elected by 'alternative vote': [img]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e3/Australian_House_of_Representatives%2C_44th_Parliament.svg/800px-Australian_House_of_Representatives%2C_44th_Parliament.svg.png[/img] Dark blue is Liberal. Light blue is Liberal National. Dark green is National. Darkest blue is Country Liberal. Neither of the four parties contest each others' seats. Notice the one Green MP on the crossbench, out of 150 total MPs. Australian Senate, elected by proportional vote: [img]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e8/Australian_Senate%2C_four_independents_2015.svg/360px-Australian_Senate%2C_four_independents_2015.svg.png[/img] Notice the 10 Green Senators on the crossbench, out of 76 total Senators.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50161556]Registration should be automatic for every citizen. You should simply be able to show up to the polling place with your social security number, ID, etc, declare which party you want to vote for, and cast your vote. Huge amounts of voters get turned away at the polls for not realizing that they missed registration deadlines, didn't declare parties, or failed to update their registration forms to reflect various things. I was turned away in Missouri because I recently moved and didn't realize that I had to update my registration with my new addres, and couldn't at the polls. I was there for fifteen minutes trying to get it sorted on the phone with the Missouri election board, to no avail, and saw no less than a dozen other people being turned away for similar infractions. Missouri's final split between Sanders and Clinton was a fraction of a percent. Every one of those votes could have actually had an impact. I don't think there's any deliberate suppression going on here, but our voting system is horribly mismanaged. We need serious overhauls to make voting easier and more accessible.[/QUOTE] What's the point of these registrations? Why not let every citizen vote for whatever they want?
I still don't understand why you have to decide you want to be in a certain party before the race even begins. How fucking stupid is that.
[QUOTE=Shadow801;50173929]I still don't understand why you have to decide you want to be in a certain party before the race even begins. How fucking stupid is that.[/QUOTE] Been said, but 100% this is a move by the parties to kill off outside candidates. Working so far for the DNC to keep Bernie out, not so well for the GOP because Trump is hijacking existing party members rather than bringing in new votes.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.