|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On February 10 2020 21:57 rope123 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2020 20:57 semantics wrote:
German population is 1/4th the size of the us in one time zone if it wasn't for the fact of the electoral college where we can ignore most states properly counting all their ballots it would take longer in the US than it does right now. How does the total population even matter at all? Votes are counted in their respective districts, no reason the US could not have the same amount of volunteers in the respective disctricts as Germany has. Properly organized paper-ballot voting in the US would not slow down anything... you can have reasonably accurated projections within 1-2 hours and all votes counted within 24. Elections in the US are organized utterly incompetently and, yes, this is deliberate to a certain extent: from waiting lines at voting booths, no national holiday for voting, borderline incomprehensible rulesets, disenfranchisement of voters, incorrect calculations, eletronic voting and much much more. The US is probably the worst democracy in the world in terms of organizing elections....you gotta wonder why that is
Nah, there's no wonder involved, US election law is the reason. Nowhere else in the world, save for maybe Switzerland, has the sharp divides between state and federal governments we do, and one of those SCOTUS-drawn divides is that, save for a few minor exceptions, state governments and political parties run practically all elections and cannot be told by the federal government how to run them.
That's one among a variety of reasons why Dems must prioritize SCOTUS appointments.
|
The fact that you've entirely given up on Congress and want SCOTUS to effectively change the law is part of the problem with the state of democracy in the US...
The path to effective legislation should not be the judiciary arm!
|
On February 10 2020 21:57 rope123 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2020 20:57 semantics wrote:
German population is 1/4th the size of the us in one time zone if it wasn't for the fact of the electoral college where we can ignore most states properly counting all their ballots it would take longer in the US than it does right now. How does the total population even matter at all? Votes are counted in their respective districts, no reason the US could not have the same amount of volunteers in the respective disctricts as Germany has. Properly organized paper-ballot voting in the US would not slow down anything... you can have reasonably accurated projections within 1-2 hours and all votes counted within 24. Elections in the US are organized utterly incompetently and, yes, this is deliberate to a certain extent: from waiting lines at voting booths, no national holiday for voting, borderline incomprehensible rulesets, disenfranchisement of voters, incorrect calculations, eletronic voting and much much more. The US is probably the worst democracy in the world in terms of organizing elections....you gotta wonder why that is
You haven't really looked into the gap the US has in terms of running the polling places.
Germany for it's size nearly has the same amount of polling stations and poll workers as all of the US. It's a bit of an exaggeration but it's depressingly not too far off.
It's not a small reason why the US has problems running elections.
I do want to clarify I'm just pointing out issues with US elections. Personally I'm for electronic voting that gives a paper back up, a receipt of the vote results with time, who voted and for whom; One for the voter and one for the polling place which the voter themselves drops into a blind box and so that there is always trust worthy back up.
I just have low expectations and want to lower the staffing burden of most places. It just be better if most votes could be done in the weeks leading up to it by mail and we just run more audits post election.
|
On February 10 2020 22:38 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2020 21:57 rope123 wrote:On February 10 2020 20:57 semantics wrote:
German population is 1/4th the size of the us in one time zone if it wasn't for the fact of the electoral college where we can ignore most states properly counting all their ballots it would take longer in the US than it does right now. How does the total population even matter at all? Votes are counted in their respective districts, no reason the US could not have the same amount of volunteers in the respective disctricts as Germany has. Properly organized paper-ballot voting in the US would not slow down anything... you can have reasonably accurated projections within 1-2 hours and all votes counted within 24. Elections in the US are organized utterly incompetently and, yes, this is deliberate to a certain extent: from waiting lines at voting booths, no national holiday for voting, borderline incomprehensible rulesets, disenfranchisement of voters, incorrect calculations, eletronic voting and much much more. The US is probably the worst democracy in the world in terms of organizing elections....you gotta wonder why that is You haven't really looked into the gap the US has in terms of running the polling places. Germany for it's size nearly has the same amount of polling stations and poll workers as all of the US. It's a bit of an exaggeration but it's depressingly not too far off. It's not a small reason why the US has problems running elections. I do want to clarify I'm just pointing out issues with US elections. Personally I'm for electronic voting that gives a paper back up, a receipt of the vote results with time, who voted and for whom one for the voter and one for the polling place and so that there is always trust worthy back up.
You completely lose anonymity doing that. And anonymity of the vote is really, really important for a democracy.
A much simpler solution than constantly trying to find new technical systems and hope that they solve your problem would be to simply spend a bit more money, and have more polling places. At some point you have to ask yourself how much democracy is worth to you.
(And honestly, in the US it would probably still be a net positive from a fiscal point of view, simply due to the productivity gained by not having millions of people wait in line for hours to be able to vote.)
|
The main reason I am opposed to giving voters receipts of their votes is because it opens the process up to peer pressure. Right now you can go into the booth, vote for whatever you want and come out with nobody the wiser. If it gives you a receipt then suddenly people around can pressure you to vote, and require the receipt as proof that you did so.
Also, the fact that you have the same number of election workers in the US as in Germany for 4 times the population is bad and one of the reasons your elections are deplorable. It *should* also be one of the easiest things to fix. At least for the national elections:
Step 1. Make election days national holidays (or organize them on Sunday).
Step 2. Recruit more volunteers, or alternatively make it a civic duty (like jury duty) that you can be called up for.
|
On February 10 2020 22:38 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2020 21:57 rope123 wrote:On February 10 2020 20:57 semantics wrote:
German population is 1/4th the size of the us in one time zone if it wasn't for the fact of the electoral college where we can ignore most states properly counting all their ballots it would take longer in the US than it does right now. How does the total population even matter at all? Votes are counted in their respective districts, no reason the US could not have the same amount of volunteers in the respective disctricts as Germany has. Properly organized paper-ballot voting in the US would not slow down anything... you can have reasonably accurated projections within 1-2 hours and all votes counted within 24. Elections in the US are organized utterly incompetently and, yes, this is deliberate to a certain extent: from waiting lines at voting booths, no national holiday for voting, borderline incomprehensible rulesets, disenfranchisement of voters, incorrect calculations, eletronic voting and much much more. The US is probably the worst democracy in the world in terms of organizing elections....you gotta wonder why that is You haven't really looked into the gap the US has in terms of running the polling places. Germany for it's size nearly has the same amount of polling stations and poll workers as all of the US. It's a bit of an exaggeration but it's depressingly not too far off. It's not a small reason why the US has problems running elections. I do want to clarify I'm just pointing out issues with US elections. Personally I'm for electronic voting that gives a paper back up, a receipt of the vote results with time, who voted and for whom; One for the voter and one for the polling place which the voter themselves drops into a blind box and so that there is always trust worthy back up. I just have low expectations and want to lower the staffing burden of most places. It just be better if most votes could be done in the weeks leading up to it by mail and we just run more audits post election.
I'm with you, up to receipt part.
|
On February 10 2020 22:36 Acrofales wrote:
The fact that you've entirely given up on Congress and want SCOTUS to effectively change the law is part of the problem with the state of democracy in the US...
The path to effective legislation should not be the judiciary arm!
You aren’t understanding, SCOTUS interpretations of the Constitution are the vehicles for their election law decisions, and those decisions literally cannot be overridden by an act of Congress. Legislators could attempt to draft around the holdings of Citizens United and Shelby County, to name two of the worst jurisprudential culprits, but that would be an extremely difficult task both with regard to the widespread applicability of SCOTUS-made law in that area and the relative dysfunction of Congress.
Nevertheless, thank you for the civics 101 lecture.
|
You can simply shread your copy. Voting isn't anonymous we can track down who voted for what, it's just privileged information. Personally I'm not so distopian that I see a receipt as opening it up to facism, as long as the election laws are still intact coercion is quite illegal. Giving a backup to yourself and the polling place is about as good as only giving the copy to the polling place. Either way with electronic voting a paper back up that the voter themselves can see and verify is important.
|
On February 10 2020 22:56 semantics wrote:
You can simply shread your copy. Voting isn't anonymous we can track down who voted for what, it's just privileged information. Personally I'm not so distopian that I see a receipt as opening it up to facism, as long as the election laws are still intact coercion is quite illegal. Giving a backup to yourself and the polling place is about as good as only giving the copy to the polling place. Either way with electronic voting a paper back up that the voter themselves can see and verify is important.
Yeah. But if all of your friends run around after the election proudly displaying that they voted for candidate X, you might look bad if you do not do the same. This is the lowest level at which the problem turns up. Then you have companies only hiring people who show them they voted the right way ("sure, you don't have to show us your voting receipt!"), and of course all of the possible other abuses both by governmental agencies and by private entities.
And if you honestly believe that a Trump-style administration wouldn't find some ways to "encourage" people to vote the right way, and prove that they did, you might be a bit naive. The US system is already based on gaming the system in any way possible, from gerrymandering to having fewer polling stations in places that vote against you to disencourage those people from voting, and so forth.
And i just don't see the gain that offsets any of these problems. There is a reason that all democracies which are worth their salt have voting be anonymous.
|
Isn't the democratic party a private entity and therefore doesn't Need to follow any law when deciding on their candidate? Imho thats the root of this whole issue that we see at the moment.
The congressional/presidential elections are an entirely diffrent Problem.
Imho the biggest issue in general is the gameshowification of all your elections. I watched the last democratic debate live and was really impressed in the worst way imageinable. Actual Game/Talentshows here (and in Germany, Austria, France) look less like a Game or Talentshow. At this rate its just a matter of time before there are actually points awarded and shown in front of each candidates pedestal depending on the amount of applause they get for an answer.
|
It's fine if the receipt for yourself only has your name and not what you voted for, the idea there is to have a hash generated on both receipts that is calculated locally on the machine so that forgery can be audited. Or you can just sign the copy submitted for record keeping.
I honestly see that being more possible than an election reforms that encourage more voulenteers and participation.
|
On February 10 2020 23:17 Velr wrote:
Isn't the democratic party a private entity and therefore doesn't Need to follow any law when deciding on their candidate? Imho thats the root of this whole issue that we see at the moment
Yep, that’s a relatively unclear area of the law and the path forward absolutely goes through some kind of rehaul of our party system. How that gets done is beyond me, aside from I am pretty sure only an outsider who grabs power will have the influence and motivations necessary.
|
On February 10 2020 23:17 Velr wrote:
Isn't the democratic party a private entity and therefore doesn't Need to follow any law when deciding on their candidate? Imho thats the root of this whole issue that we see at the moment.
The congressional/presidential elections are an entirely diffrent Problem.
Imho the biggest issue in general is the gameshowification of all your elections. I watched the last democratic debate life and was really impressed in the worst way imageinable. Actual Game/Talentshows here (and in Germany, Austria, France) look less like a Game or Talentshow your debates. At this rate its just a matter of time before there are actually points awarded and shown in front of each candidates pedestal depending on the amount of applause they get for an answer.
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/UUgfQy0.jpg)
At the bottom and sides of the screen.
|
Northern Ireland26315 Posts
I’ll have you know the clapometer is a very useful tool in the kit of any serious political analyst.
|
On February 10 2020 23:28 Wombat_NI wrote:
I’ll have you know the clapometer is a very useful tool in the kit of any serious political analyst.
Yeah, as is the Vuvuzela to every attendant wanting to truely support his prefered candidate.
|
|
|
On February 10 2020 22:53 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2020 22:36 Acrofales wrote:
The fact that you've entirely given up on Congress and want SCOTUS to effectively change the law is part of the problem with the state of democracy in the US...
The path to effective legislation should not be the judiciary arm! You aren’t understanding, SCOTUS interpretations of the Constitution are the vehicles for their election law decisions, and those decisions literally cannot be overridden by an act of Congress. Legislators could attempt to draft around the holdings of Citizens United and Shelby County, to name two of the worst jurisprudential culprits, but that would be an extremely difficult task both with regard to the widespread applicability of SCOTUS-made law in that area and the relative dysfunction of Congress. Nevertheless, thank you for the civics 101 lecture.
Let me put it this way: if SCOTUS has interpreted the constitution and the result is not to your liking, wouldn't it be better to fight for changing the constitution rather than changing the interpreter? Because even if you stack the SCOTUS with progressives AND they read the constitution differently, in 20 years when SCOTUS changes hands again, you're back at scratch. Sure, you could claim a congressional supermajority can also just re-amend the constitution but the whole point is that if there is a problem with the law, that's congress's job to fix. And if the problem is with the constitution, then it needs amending.
Congress's chronic fear of doing anything has eroded its power to the point of impotence. It has delegated its primary tasks to the executive and judicial branches of government.
|
Congress is not afraid of doing anything, it is full of people who were literally put there to either do nothing or lessen the power of the federal government. And yes, practically no one asserts that the Constitution doesn’t need some kind of alteration, but saying “you should amend the Constitution instead of wrest back control of the judiciary” would be putting off an unlikely short/medium term solution in search of something longer term that is even less likely than the former. We can do both, and in the meantime, getting “money is not speech” constitutionalized is far more likely in the courts than by other means.
We have literally decades of judge-made law that centers on acknowledging that “Congress should do this” is a gussied up “this will never happen if I have any say,” so utilizing that trope implicates a ton of US legal history. Basically every “good” SCOTUS decision can be met with that same rejoinder for a reason that is deeply rooted in the history of how the US allocates power among the states and the branches of the federal government.
Again though, it must be reiterated that Congressional impotence is itself the political goal of those who want to reduce the influence of the federal government, and normative sentiments to the contrary do little to stopper that dynamic. Channeling the complaints of those opposed to conservative governance into the game of impotent Congress complaints and wistful constitutional amendment dreams is the goal of those who benefit from the status quo. And that’s totally ignoring ALEC and the other conservative groups that are waiting for the constitutional convention, ready to pounce.
|
United States43642 Posts
On February 10 2020 22:36 Acrofales wrote:
The fact that you've entirely given up on Congress and want SCOTUS to effectively change the law is part of the problem with the state of democracy in the US...
The path to effective legislation should not be the judiciary arm!
Congress can’t work without the Senate and the Senate is set up to give 1/6th of the American population the same representation as the other 5/6ths.
|
Another week of polls. Another week indicating Warren has absolutely zero reason to be in the race.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
