EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 3429
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12619 Posts
| ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
On March 23 2016 06:49 Velr wrote: 1: Send all documents (including informations, ballot, voting id) by post. 2: Let people send it back (signed ballot + voting id). 3: Count. Rocket Science! Yes, but flaws in early/absentee voting are readily apparent in this Republican primary as hundreds of thousands of votes for people no longer in the race continue to be counted and cast in states going on. And there are other, relevant, criticisms. Also, absentee voting is probably the most susceptible to coordinated fraud as voter rolls and lists of "inactive" voters are publicly available. The solutions to voting lines are not easy, unless you decide that cost should be no object. Which, by the way, these are primaries, not general elections. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10989 Posts
 .Btw: If you write someone ineglible on the ballot its just counteds as "void" and why would that even be a problem? Btw2: Obviously you would have the vote in all states at the same time because the process you have atm is ridiculous and influences the chances of candidates way too much... Its a vote not a circus show. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24504 Posts
On March 23 2016 06:54 cLutZ wrote: Yes, but flaws in early/absentee voting are readily apparent in this Republican primary as hundreds of thousands of votes for people no longer in the race continue to be counted and cast in states going on. And there are other, relevant, criticisms. Also, absentee voting is probably the most susceptible to coordinated fraud as voter rolls and lists of "inactive" voters are publicly available. The solutions to voting lines are not easy, unless you decide that cost should be no object. Which, by the way, these are primaries, not general elections. There will be long ass lines for the general too, particularly in low income and minority communities. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On March 23 2016 06:57 Velr wrote: I dunno, we do it like that for all our votes (you can also just drop the documents in at every voting station, but most people do it by mail), there are no issues with fraud and we vote often .Btw: If you write someone ineglible on the ballot its just counteds as "void" and why would that even be a problem? Btw2: Obviously you would have the vote in all states at the same time because the process you have atm is ridiculous and influences the chances of candidates way too much... Its a vote not a circus show. There are legitimate problems with having the vote in all states at the same time. It makes it virtually impossible for candidates with low name recognition to ever win, and forces them to advertise infinitely more than their rivals with far more resources-and since unlike other countries money comes from wherever instead of a public fund, that's nigh-impossible. Sanders, for example, would not be doing nearly as well had everyone voted at once, and Clinton would probably have been the Democratic nominee in 2008. Having the same states vote early every year, on the other hand, is bizarre. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10989 Posts
 | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
On March 23 2016 06:57 Velr wrote: I dunno, we do it like that for all our votes (you can also just drop the documents in at every voting station, but most people do it by mail), there are no issues with fraud and we vote often .Btw: If you write someone ineglible on the ballot its just counteds as "void" and why would that even be a problem? Btw2: Obviously you would have the vote in all states at the same time because the process you have atm is ridiculous and influences the chances of candidates way too much... Its a vote not a circus show. Are you looking for fraud? Are voter rolls consistently purged of inactive voters (many groups in our country consistently oppose such things in the courts)? Does your equivalent of the FBI attempt to commit fraud in order to test the robustness of your system? Ours doesnt. Your suggestion also included the word "Voter ID", another thing consistently opposed by many people here. On March 23 2016 07:04 Plansix wrote: And there is no way we would have a clear winner after one primary if they were all at once. We would need to do it several times to narrow the field. Yes. Or automatic runoff, which people argue is too confusing for some voters. I think no more than 7 days of early voting is needed, and absentee ballots should also be postmarked in that period. That way, say, Hillary is indicted tomorrow, half of California doesn't still end up voting for her. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24504 Posts
| ||
|
puerk
Germany855 Posts
Maybe go away from insisting that it has to be run like in the 18 hundreds and consult the huge body of political science established since then. We know that FPTP is a terrible system for important elections where nuance would be beneficial. We know how proportional systems can be mixed with local representation. We know how to get unbiassed local representation (fair districts). I think the american process would embarass every other firstworld country. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On March 23 2016 07:04 Plansix wrote: And there is no way we would have a clear winner after one primary if they were all at once. We would need to do it several times to narrow the field. Begs the question, does the winner need to be clear? Is someone winning by 2% a terrible thing? General elections are won by slim margins. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24504 Posts
| ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 23 2016 06:50 Nebuchad wrote: I've seen that Guardian article before and I thought that their quotes from the Global Times thingy were pretty poor. You don't really get that the point is to criticize democracy from what's written there, seems like a statement of fact about wandering into the dark side of democracy, which you can totally believe is the case here without being against democracy in the first place (case in point: me). If the article is really a hitjob against democracy I'm sure there were better quotes in it. are you doubting the ccp is trying to legitimize itself with trump? the domestic media is much more direct but they are coordinated in time usually. the spike in trump coverage and the racial violence etc is but the most recent chain of ccp reporting on murica. their english propaganda stuff is really poor quality so they are not that dangerous. the more insipid are deluded tool academics trying to conform reality to their various patronizing valorizations of glorious china. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On March 23 2016 07:19 GreenHorizons wrote: Meanwhile, former independents are being turned away in AZ because the party didn't update their voting rolls. It's so obvious this is bullshit I don't know how people can't see it. Didn't update voting rolls? I don't understand what you are saying, perhaps due to my own ignorance regarding Arizona's process. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24504 Posts
On March 23 2016 07:26 Mohdoo wrote: Didn't update voting rolls? I don't understand what you are saying, perhaps due to my own ignorance regarding Arizona's process. Voters who registered with the Democratic party this year haven't been added to the voter rolls and are being told they can't vote. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24504 Posts
On March 23 2016 07:30 oneofthem wrote: some heavily sanders voting non democrats want to vote. party didnt update their records instantaneously. obvious hillary sabotage Considering more people are independent than either party it's pretty stupid to exclude them under any circumstances. We're not talking instantaneously we're talking months. But thanks for playing. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On March 23 2016 07:29 GreenHorizons wrote: Voters who registered with the Democratic party this year haven't been added to the voter rolls and are being told they can't vote. To be fair, "this year" is only 3 months. After what date of registering are people not updated? Are people who registered in 2015 accounted for? How is updating done in other states? | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24504 Posts
On March 23 2016 07:32 Mohdoo wrote: To be fair, "this year" is only 3 months. After what date of registering are people not updated? Are people who registered in 2015 accounted for? How is updating done in other states? It's been an issue for over a decade in Arizona This will just be the biggest and most specific instance. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
| ||
