EPT2020 Democratic Nominees - Page 76
| Forum Index > Closed |
If this thread turns into a USPMT 2.0, we will not hesitate to shut it down. Do not even bother posting if all you're going to do is shit on the Democratic candidates while adding nothing of value. Rules: - Don't post meaningless one-liners. - Don't turn this into a X doesn't stand a chance against Trump debate. - Sources MUST have a supporting comment that summarizes the source beforehand. - Do NOT turn this thread into a Republicans vs. Democrats shit-storm. This thread will be heavily moderated. Expect the same kind of strictness as the USPMT. | ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
| ||
|
Simberto
Germany11490 Posts
I still think that it is absurd that that is acceptable in the US. In combination with voting on a work day, it means that a lot of people, especially those who are less well off, simply cannot afford to vote. Once again the comparison to my voting experience, where the whole process takes less than 15 minutes every single time, and the waiting times, if there are any at all, can easily be counted on the fingers of a single hand. (Also, obviously on a sunday. Anything else is just stupid) | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23169 Posts
On March 11 2020 23:08 Simberto wrote: That is true. I still think that it is absurd that that is acceptable in the US. In combination with voting on a work day, it means that a lot of people, especially those who are less well off, simply cannot afford to vote. Once again the comparison to my voting experience, where the whole process takes less than 15 minutes every single time, and the waiting times, if there are any at all, can easily be counted on the fingers of a single hand. (Also, obviously on a sunday. Anything else is just stupid) Is it fair to say it isn't "stupid" and is "malicious" at this point? Keeping in mind some of these contests/examples are completely under control of the Democratic party. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On March 11 2020 23:11 GreenHorizons wrote: Is it fair to say it isn't "stupid" and is "malicious" at this point? Keeping in mind some of these contests/examples are completely under control of the Democratic party. I think it's fair to say it's intentional at the very least. It's plain to see that there are groups, including Democrats as you say, that have a vested interest in making a proper, honest, to-the-point and observable election nigh on impossible. Like our healthcare system, the problems with our electoral process are glaringly obvious when put in contrast with the functioning systems many other countries have. | ||
|
Erasme
Bahamas15899 Posts
Like wtf its literally a 3min job, then 3more min to make sure its safe | ||
Nakajin
Canada8989 Posts
On March 11 2020 22:35 GreenHorizons wrote: You can see several of the discrepancies compiled here: Unobservable computer counts are, on their face, vulnerable to manipulation. This has been repeatedly demonstrated at Def Con then here is USAID's own statement on such discrepancies: www.usaid.gov Real democracies use paper imo. While I'm not a fan of computer voting, taking 4 days to count the result, any amount of fucked up electoral college/delegate systems, voter suppression or even just showing the results when you have not finished counting all the vote, I have a hard time believing the US election are outright rigged (the guy's apparently saying the election was rigged by Clinton in the primary then Trump in the general?). I feel like it's a case of refusing the most evident answer to go look for the more complicated one with nothing really pointing in that direction, if there's a discrepancy between polling and election results, it's probably the polling who is wrong. Especially when there's glaring problem with exit polls, I mean elections are just a better way to polls people on their choice. Now it is interesting that exit polls seems to pretty reliably over count the results of the most leftist candidate (Sanders in the primary and Clinton in the general), but to me until proven wrong, it tell me more about the tendency of who answer exit poll than it point to electoral fraud. Be it because of mailed-in ballot, of the kind of voting station where news station decide to send their team of pollsters and at what hour, of which kind of person agree to answer an exist polls and which kind tend to refuse, ect... Also generally when exit polls are used to judge the validity of an election results, they are done by international/UN people with the sole purpose of looking at the discrepancy between those and election results, as such I'd imagine they tend to be more rigorous and it's clear that voters are heavily skew toward answering them, although it's always a bit of uneven method, there's usually observer looking for other kinds of way to survey electoral fraud. To finish, in the coming years (and it has already begun) we should expect polling to get worst and worst, the disappearance of landlines, voters making their choice later and a growing distrust of individuals toward pollster (or just overall disinterest really) make doing reliable polls both harder and more expensive. Pollster more and more relied on paid respondent, you guys can register to one if want and make a few bucks (but really just a few). Warning tho turn out pollster mostly do marketing polls, so be ready to answer 20 questions about your favorite bread packaging for each question about politics. It's a fairly big problem in academia since most researcher can't afford or rely on polls like they used to. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23169 Posts
On March 11 2020 23:26 NewSunshine wrote: I think it's fair to say it's intentional at the very least. It's plain to see that there are groups, including Democrats as you say, that have a vested interest in making a proper, honest, to-the-point and observable election nigh on impossible. Like our healthcare system, the problems with our electoral process are glaringly obvious when put in contrast with the functioning systems many other countries have. I feel like CV-19 has drawn that into focus that being "better than Trump" isn't good enough when it comes to things like this, as is demonstrated by the ACA leaving people unable to afford testing and a dilapidated healthcare system unable to ramp up testing. A more dangerous virus means either it runs rampant across an unprepared nation (Biden said he would Veto M4A) or a police state to stop the spread that could result in someone like Trump doing it when Democrats aren't in power. On March 11 2020 23:40 Nakajin wrote: + Show Spoiler + While I'm not a fan of computer voting, taking 4 days to count the result, any amount of fucked up electoral college/delegate systems, voter suppression or even just showing the results when you have not finished counting all the vote, I have a hard time believing the US election are outright rigged (the guy's apparently saying the election was rigged by Clinton in the primary then Trump in the general?). I feel like it's a case of refusing the most evident answer to go look for the more complicated one with nothing really pointing in that direction, if there's a discrepancy between polling and election results, it's probably the polling who is wrong. Especially when there's glaring problem with exit polls, I mean elections are just a better way to polls people on their choice. Now it is interesting that exit polls seems to pretty reliably over count the results of the most leftist candidate (Sanders in the primary and Clinton in the general), but to me until proven wrong, it tell me more about the tendency of who answer exit poll than it point to electoral fraud. Be it because of mailed-in ballot, of the kind of voting station where news station decide to send their team of pollsters and at what hour, of which kind of person agree to answer an exist polls and which kind tend to refuse, ect... Also generally when exit polls are used to judge the validity of an election results, they are done by international/UN people with the sole purpose of looking at the discrepancy between those and election results, as such I'd imagine they tend to be more rigorous and it's clear that voters are heavily skew toward answering them, although it's always a bit of uneven method, there's usually observer looking for other kinds of way to survey electoral fraud. To finished, in the coming years (and it has already begun) we should expect polling to get worst and worst, the disappearance of landlines, voters making their choice later and a growing distrust of individuals toward pollster (or just overall disinterest really) make doing reliable polls both harder and more expensive. Pollster more and more relied on paid respondent, you guys can register to one if want and make a few bucks, warning tho turn out pollster mostly do marketing polls, so be ready to answer 20 questions about your favorite bread packaging for each question about politics. It's a fairly big problem in academia since most researcher can't afford or rely on polls like they used to. I wouldn't say it is proof positive that they were rigged either just so we're clear. Just that it is beyond the pale as far as what would typically be a red flag imploring independent investigation. As far as: (the guy's apparently saying the election was rigged by Clinton in the primary then Trump in the general?) I think JimmiC misread the article from Aldous Pennyfarthing. It only mentions the guy who did the math (I would love for it to be checked by the TL math folks) being quoted about it on Heavy.com. The person they are talking about regarding the Russia stuff (which also seems mischaracterized) is The Root reporter/MSNBC contributor Michael Harriot. | ||
|
Nakajin
Canada8989 Posts
On March 11 2020 23:47 GreenHorizons wrote: I feel like CV-19 has drawn that into focus that being "better than Trump" isn't good enough when it comes to things like this, as is demonstrated by the ACA leaving people unable to afford testing and a dilapidated healthcare system unable to ramp up testing. A more dangerous virus means either it runs rampant across an unprepared nation (Biden said he would Veto M4A) or a police state to stop the spread that could result in someone like Trump doing it when Democrats aren't in power. I wouldn't say it is proof positive that they were rigged either just so we're clear. Just that it is beyond the pale as far as what would typically be a red flag imploring independent investigation. As far as: I think JimmiC misread the article from Aldous Pennyfarthing. It only mentions the guy who did the math (I would love for it to be checked by the TL math folks) being quoted about it on Heavy.com. The person they are talking about regarding the Russia stuff is The Root reporter Michael Harriot. Oh I was only looking at the thing in your link, it was a bit disingenuous from me to say he's advancing that the election were rigged, but it seems to be kind of the point of the thing, although the pure date is interesting in itself. In any cases he's said that according to exist polls Clinton had won North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Florida and as such should have won the electoral college 306 to 232 and also that Democrats should now be in the control of the Senate 51(+1 independent) to 48 according to exit polls. In the primary both Sanders and Warren are way over performing in exit polls compared to Biden (he's saying about 8% in Massachusetts between both of them and Biden for example). To me it overall point out to a systematic methodological problem with exit polls, and particularly the CNN exit polls which seems to be the one he's using as a benchmark. With that said, I do agree there's absolutely various legal and open way through which US democracy skew results toward one side or the other, voter suppression or gerrymandering being the most glaring | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23169 Posts
On March 12 2020 00:07 Nakajin wrote: Oh I was only looking at the thing in your link, it was a bit disingenuous from me to say he's advancing that the election were rigged, but it seems to be kind of the point of the thing, although the pure date is interesting in itself. In any cases he's said that according to exist polls Clinton had won North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Florida and as such should have won the electoral college 306 to 232 and also that Democrats should now be in the control of the Senate 51(+1 independent) to 48 according to exit polls. In the primary both Sanders and Warren are way over performing in exit polls compared to Biden (he's saying about 8% in Massachusetts between both of them and Biden). To me it overall point out to a systematic problem with exit polls, and particularly the CNN exit polls which seems to be the one he's using as a benchmark. I referenced it because the math is done and the instances are compiled. I wouldn't/couldn't cosign anything beyond the math seemed to be accurate to my layman eyes. The Edison/CNN exit polls are the national standard (I don't think there are other scale operations in the US) for exit polls. I don't think there is other data to work with (I welcome being corrected on this). This is one reason international observers have been called for by advocates of democracy. I think the exit polls could be bad, but that doesn't undermine/change that it should be treated like the red flag it would be elsewhere, particularly with consideration to voter suppression, reporting errors, etc... imo. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Nakajin
Canada8989 Posts
On March 12 2020 00:40 JimmiC wrote: I too would prefer if the US used paper ballots for their election, also it is very strange to a Canadian that there are different rules state by state. With that being said, and some one can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Canadians use paper ballots or are required to when they pick the leader of a party. And I can't remember any controversy ever around it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leadership_convention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Liberal_Party_of_Canada_leadership_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_New_Democratic_Party_leadership_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Conservative_Party_of_Canada_leadership_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Green_Party_of_Canada_leadership_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Bloc_Québécois_leadership_election Do other countries require paper ballots for picking the leader of the party? If any of the European's know the answer for their country I would be interested. Thanks. Canadian primary are a lot less organize than the US one. I mean you don't need to have any kind of democratic process if you don't want to ( and as far I know it's true for the US too?). Some of the race in Canada have truly been crazy, that last conservative one in particular had some insane rules, not necessarily none-democratics, but absolutely mind boggling. It has also happen sometime that locally party member chose a candidate for a county and the leader of the party just decide it's not gonna be that person. The history of the Bloc Québécois various leadership and internal infighting in the last 10 years could make for a very good TV show lol. The big difference is that the US systems is really based around political party, with electors being proposed to sign up to a party when they register to vote. (At least that what I gatter, someone tell me if I'm wrong) Almost no one is a member of a party in Canada, and you generally need to pay to be part of one, although I think the libs made it free last time around. Also I don't know about you, but pretty much no one care about primary run in Canada, if you are an avid news watcher or involve in a political party you will see it pass, but for most people at least around me, it goes 10 feet over their heads. As a quick data the last conservative run had around 140 000 voters while the last democratic primary race had over 30 million voters. (Population to population, the conservative run should still have had around 20-30 times more voters to be in the same ball park) https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Élection_à_la_direction_du_Parti_conservateur_du_Canada_de_2017 | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
Regardless, I think electoral reform is only going to happen when the people advocating for it aren't coming from a place of "and that's why my preferred candidate lost." Both in the primaries and in the general. It becomes infinitely harder to disentangle valid points from confirmation bias based on noise. It's jarring to me to see people elsewhere on the internet wail about long wait lines but stay mum on the topic of caucuses (which from the looks of Minnesota and Washington reduced voter participation by a huge factor) or don't acknowledge that the 15% threshold is pretty damn undemocratic if perhaps procedurally necessary. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23169 Posts
On March 12 2020 00:53 TheTenthDoc wrote: Keep in mind that suggesting the exit polls are a better reflection of voter preferences than vote counts also requires discarding pretty much all the real polling evidence (well, aggregated polling evidence) as equally as biased as vote counts. Heck, given how badly polls underestimated Biden in South Carolina it has to be more biased. Regardless, I think electoral reform is only going to happen when the people advocating for it aren't coming from a place of "and that's why my preferred candidate lost." Both in the primaries and in the general. It becomes infinitely harder to disentangle valid points from confirmation bias based on noise. It's jarring to me to see people elsewhere on the internet wail about long wait lines but stay mum on the topic of caucuses (which from the looks of Washington reduced voter participation by a huge factor) or don't acknowledge that the 15% threshold is pretty damn undemocratic if perhaps procedurally necessary. My argument isn't that they are a better reflection. It is that historically and internationally such a discrepancy is a red flag warranting independent/international investigation and people loyal to the party are precariously accepting of it. Caucuses were designed to measure enthusiasm (partly by suppressing/intimidating voters and seeing if they showed up anyway), not strictly voter preference. That said, yes they are a form of voter suppression, though one that no longer favors the party. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21640 Posts
On March 12 2020 00:40 JimmiC wrote: Most countries don't turn it into months long large events that dominate the national news. Probably also in large parts because there are actually more then 2 parties.I too would prefer if the US used paper ballots for their election, also it is very strange to a Canadian that there are different rules state by state. With that being said, and some one can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Canadians use paper ballots or are required to when they pick the leader of a party. And I can't remember any controversy ever around it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leadership_convention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Liberal_Party_of_Canada_leadership_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_New_Democratic_Party_leadership_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Conservative_Party_of_Canada_leadership_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Green_Party_of_Canada_leadership_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Bloc_Québécois_leadership_election Do other countries require paper ballots for picking the leader of the party? If any of the European's know the answer for their country I would be interested. Thanks. Over here in the Netherlands parties can generally decide themselves how they do it. Most hold an election where party members (which anyone can sign up for but generally costs money) hold a vote. Considering the amount of members this is generally done via mail or online. As far as I know none of them work with polling stations to hold an actual 'election day'. Its a thing that get mentioned in the news but outside of party members most people don't care much for it. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25045 Posts
On March 12 2020 00:53 TheTenthDoc wrote: Keep in mind that suggesting the exit polls are a better reflection of voter preferences than vote counts also requires discarding pretty much all the real polling evidence (well, aggregated polling evidence) as equally as biased as vote counts. Heck, given how badly polls underestimated Biden in South Carolina it has to be more biased. Regardless, I think electoral reform is only going to happen when the people advocating for it aren't coming from a place of "and that's why my preferred candidate lost." Both in the primaries and in the general. It becomes infinitely harder to disentangle valid points from confirmation bias based on noise. It's jarring to me to see people elsewhere on the internet wail about long wait lines but stay mum on the topic of caucuses (which from the looks of Minnesota and Washington reduced voter participation by a huge factor) or don't acknowledge that the 15% threshold is pretty damn undemocratic if perhaps procedurally necessary. Indeed, hard to see where the appetite comes from, but reform sounds desperately needed in all sorts of domains. If you’re going to end up with hours waiting to vote, at least have them at weekends or holidays. At least over here regardless of when we have an election it’s never taken me longer than 15 minutes in and out. Depends, myself in the past and other younger, more tenuously employed folks, I’m not sure I’d be voting if I had to use up leave from work, or risking the wrath of employer by going to vote regardless. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21640 Posts
On March 12 2020 01:21 JimmiC wrote:I think generally people everywhere else trust that the party is at least trying to do what gives it the best chance to win, and it seems uniquely American, at least of democracies where people think they are pushing other agenda's. With the amount of money spent and at stake it becomes far more believable as well. I think the distrust is also a big consequence of the US being a 2 party system. Because of this you have pre-formed coalitions and groups that are (partly) ideologically opposed fighting for the same spot as party Candidate.In a non FPTP system these groups would all be separate parties that chose their own candidate for the general election and the distrust of a conservative DNC leadership trying to keep a progressive out of the candidacy doesn't exist. | ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
On March 12 2020 01:21 JimmiC wrote: I think generally people everywhere else trust that the party is at least trying to do what gives it the best chance to win, and it seems uniquely American, at least of democracies where people think they are pushing other agenda's. With the amount of money spent and at stake it becomes far more believable as well. For what it's worth I don't believe or trust that and think most people shouldn't. There's no strong direct incentive for Democrats to win as a body. Each individual wants to win (power), and the combined group of politicians needs to win enough to not risk being overtaken by a 3rd party or fraction or otherwise wholesale sunk. Otherwise the financial incentive of the body is more closely aligned with polarizing politics to fuel donations (i.e. Trump is good for DNC's bottom line). What you see is less of a cohesive strong push for winning and more a multi-faceted blob of only roughly aligned interests and incentives. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15661 Posts
He isn't winning over Black People, young people aren't voting and Biden is legitimately getting the old folks excited. We are seeing very clearly that "never Clinton" folks were a big part of Bernie's 2016. Look at Biden's platform and compare it to Clinton's. You can see Bernie's influence all over it. We've made progress. Bernie has impacted the party and it is better because of him. | ||
| ||
