50 replies to this topic

[Chakoteya]

Mary Rose, on 22 June 2014 - 03:27 PM, said:

That's why I wish we could just get rid of political parties and have each candidate stand on their own merits and what not.  But that ship has sailed, sadly.

Wonderful ideal.
How would 600+ independent minds agree on who was going to be the CEO and his board of directors, and then on what legislation to enact?
I think the US has it worse, because you elect your head of state, whereas in the UK the monarch is strictly apolitical, bless her. Although being Prime Minister is prestigious, it's not THE ultimate in power trips, IMHO.

Omega, sounds like you want proportional representation. That opens the door to lots of varying candidates, and could possibly leave the tea party or whatever the other marginal fruitcake party of the country is, with the balance of power. Like all methods, be careful what you wish for, because you might get it.

[Omega]

Proportional representation is actually different, but also a great idea! Approval voting works for single-winner elections too.

[sierraleone]

Omega, on 23 June 2014 - 06:28 AM, said:

Proportional representation is actually different, but also a great idea! Approval voting works for single-winner elections too.

In the U.S.'s basically two-party system, approval voting, as you have described it, doesn't seem like it would change much, at least in the short term. Are you hoping that approval voting would encourage the creation and/or support of more parties/candidates in the U.S.? I could see it make a quicker change in countries with multiple parties, especially ones where support on one wing of the political spectrum is near-locked up in one party but the other wing of the political spectrum is divided among multiple parties. Like Canada at the moment

[Omega]

It would take some time, for sure. But I think within a few election cycles, people would realize that primaries had become a pointless exercise. Why spend time narrowing down the possible candidates to two? You can just put them all on the ballot at once and let them have at it! At which point, the parties will naturally splinter.

[Chakoteya]

Just a caveat about long ballot papers - the European elections paper was about two feet long and put a lot of people off from voting. A turnout of 34% is not good democracy, whether for local or supra-national elections.

Believe it or not, a large proportion of people seem to just want a strong character telling them what to do. See the political climate in Russia, the Middle East and the sub-continent for more details.

[243Skunk]

I once thought about the idea of tying having a driver's license with voter rolls. In order to be eligible to have a driver's license, you have to vote on a somewhat regular basis. I dont know exactly how feasible it would be, however.

[Omega]

I don't think punishing people for not voting is a good idea. The only thing worse than a low voter turnout is a high uninterested (and thus uninformed) voter turnout.Turnout is the symptom. Voter apathy is the real problem. Change the system so that a voter's preferences actually matter, and you at least improve that particular problem.

[243Skunk]

Omega, on 25 June 2014 - 09:32 PM, said:

I don't think punishing people for not voting is a good idea. The only thing worse than a low voter turnout is a high uninterested (and thus uninformed) voter turnout.Turnout is the symptom. Voter apathy is the real problem. Change the system so that a voter's preferences actually matter, and you at least improve that particular problem.

That was one of my main issues. Using myself as an example, If I dont know enough about the particular candidates, I refuse to vote for them. The offices for the elected judges, for example, I hardly vote for because I know next to nothing and its hard to find anything about them or their history. But I dont think many voters are like me. They would make their choice because they are a "prosecutor" according to their description, or they are the first candidate on the ballot, or whatever.

The other hangup I had was that a convicted felon, in theory, can have a drivers license but cant vote. If my idea passed then people ineligible to vote would have their licenses taken away.

Like I said it was only an idea. Not really feasible.

[Omega]

^Another thing I'd do is print each ballot in a random order. There's a known statistical advantage to being first on the ballot, which means whoever writes the laws defining ballot order can write the law to help themselves win elections.

[Chakoteya]

243Skunk, on 25 June 2014 - 09:14 PM, said:

I once thought about the idea of tying having a driver's license with voter rolls. In order to be eligible to have a driver's license, you have to vote on a somewhat regular basis. I dont know exactly how feasible it would be, however.

How would that work for people just coming up to driving age? Isn't it similar to the voting age? And what would be deemed regular voting? Would someone have to wait 20 years (5 national elections) in order to be regarded as a regular voter? Or do towns/states have annual elections so it could mount up more quickly?

On second thoughts, that sounds brilliant. No more under 20s getting themselves killed because they've only just passed their test and think they can drive a sports car at top speed....

And if some one is in prison, why do they need a drivers license? Where are they thinking of going? It would be very sensible to have them take a fresh test once they were released, to check their skills and knowledge were still up to par.

[243Skunk]

^ I was using felons as an example. Other groups (nonresident aliens i.e. immigrants on special visas) can get licenses but cant vote.

In the U.S. you can vote when you are 18. I would nave no problem personally moving the driving age to that, but others might. But then I have seen the ending result of fatal traffic accidents multiple times, and how it destroys lives. We have too many people who shouldnt be driving, but are. I saw this as a way to kill two birds with one stone....reduce the number of drivers, increase voter participation.

[DarthMarley]

http://watchdog.org/...on-prosecutors/

Quote

Subpoenas also demanded the conservatives’ bank records, “emails from every major private email provider” and other information in what some have described as a mini-NSA (National Security Agency) operation in Wisconsin.

BklnScott, on 22 June 2014 - 07:33 AM, said:

There are plenty of rotten Democrats, too, of course - always have been, always will be.

That said, three top GOP 2016 hopefuls turn out to be criminals? Out of how many? Five? This is what you get when you have a political party that fetishizes snakeoil and eschews credentials.

So, at this point, how many of these "criminals" have had a guilty verdict returned against them?
What happens when Dems are described as fetishists in unflattering terms around here?

[Omega]

^To my recollection? Discussion.

[BklnScott]

DarthMarley, on 27 August 2014 - 11:28 PM, said:

http://watchdog.org/...on-prosecutors/

Quote

Subpoenas also demanded the conservatives’ bank records, “emails from every major private email provider” and other information in what some have described as a mini-NSA (National Security Agency) operation in Wisconsin.

BklnScott, on 22 June 2014 - 07:33 AM, said:

There are plenty of rotten Democrats, too, of course - always have been, always will be.

That said, three top GOP 2016 hopefuls turn out to be criminals? Out of how many? Five? This is what you get when you have a political party that fetishizes snakeoil and eschews credentials.

So, at this point, how many of these "criminals" have had a guilty verdict returned against them?

In the two months since I wrote that post? None. Justice takes time. On the other hand, Rick Perry has been indicted since then, and Bob McDonnell's trial proceeds apace. It should conclude before too much longer and it seems pretty likely he will be convicted and sent to jail.

So now it's 4 of the GOP presidential hopefuls, not 3, and let's not forget that Rand Paul has had some fairly embarrassing (if not exactly criminal) revelations re: plagiarism in his speeches.

Seems like a pretty motley crew to me. Is Jeb Bush gonna run? I think we all know the Bush Brand is still toxic on the presidential level and will be for a generation.

This is why you have Mitt Romney starting to walk back his "never!" comments on running again in 2016. "Circumstances can change," it seems - by which he means: behind the scenes, establishment Republican leaders are freaking out. Their bench is filled with unserious contenders. And they are begging Romney to run again - at least he's not under indictment! Those are the standards.

Meanwhile, on the other side, Hillary Clinton. Be afraid, GOPers. Oh? You already are? Sensible.

Quote

What happens when Dems are described as fetishists in unflattering terms around here?

The GOP does eschew credentials and does fetishize snake oil. I'm sorry if you feel personally stung by the comment, but what's true is true - see: "GOP and evolution," "GOP and climate change," "GOP and science," generally… not to mention: GOP and equal rights for LGBT people, GOP and how we would be greeted in Iraq, et al ad nauseum.

I would like to see that change, BTW. It would be nice to someday go into my polling place during a presidential election year and have an actual choice of who to vote for.

Edited by BklnScott, 28 August 2014 - 07:47 AM.

[Omega]

What's odd to me about this election is that it's usually fairly obvious who the GOP will pick. Sitting president, sitting VP, or whoever's turn it is. I'm not sure whose turn it is. Santorum? Ryan? They're the only recent national candidates who still have some reputation intact. Ryan comes across as less polarizing than Santorum...

[243Skunk]

Omega, on 28 August 2014 - 11:07 AM, said:

What's odd to me about this election is that it's usually fairly obvious who the GOP will pick. Sitting president, sitting VP, or whoever's turn it is. I'm not sure whose turn it is. Santorum? Ryan? They're the only recent national candidates who still have some reputation intact. Ryan comes across as less polarizing than Santorum...

Mike Huckabee.

[Nonny]

243Skunk, on 28 August 2014 - 09:27 PM, said:

Omega, on 28 August 2014 - 11:07 AM, said:

What's odd to me about this election is that it's usually fairly obvious who the GOP will pick. Sitting president, sitting VP, or whoever's turn it is. I'm not sure whose turn it is. Santorum? Ryan? They're the only recent national candidates who still have some reputation intact. Ryan comes across as less polarizing than Santorum...

Mike Huckabee.

It really is hard to determine which would be worst.

[BklnScott]

Huckabee's not running again (he likes making big bucks too much) - but I'm sure Santorum is. His base and Huckabee's are the same. Doubtful that they would fight each other over those votes.

The problem for Republicans wanting a mainstream candidate as their 2016 nominee is that all the likely GOP establishment contenders are either under indictment or under serious threat of same. The Karl Rove types are worried that they will end up with Rand Paul as the nominee - and that Hillary will promptly nuke him for a number of reasons but in particular because she hews closer to establishment Republican positions on the economy and foreign policy than he does. (There's a reason he's trying to hit her on Iraq from her left.)  

[243Skunk]

BklnScott, on 29 August 2014 - 08:31 AM, said:

Huckabee's not running again (he likes making big bucks too much)

You think so? I always thought he was just biding his time till all of the others got done imploding. He knew 2012 was going to be a mess so he just let that one go so he could prepare for 2016.

Personally cant stand him, but right now he seems a lot less of a mess and everyone has forgotten about his pardoning mess.....

[Tricia]

^^^Oh, but how long do you think they will when reminded about that pardoning mess?

Always someone there to remind them, ya know. and the upset and anger are easy to stir up again.

Really don't care whether it's his fellow Republicans or the Democrats that do it.  

I am honestly just tired of them all tearing each other down and destroying each other.

Edited by Tricia, 02 September 2014 - 05:48 PM.